Synovus Bank v. Mitchell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a motion “must be based on a manifest error of law or mistake of fact and must show either: (1) that an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) that previously unavailable evidence is now available; or (3
• “This court has consistently held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear claims alleging the breach of a Title VII settlement agreement due to the comprehensive statutory scheme established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
• “This court has consistently held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear claims alleging the breach of a Title VII Settlement Agreement due to the comprehensive statutory [review] scheme established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
• “This court has consistently held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear claims alleging the breach of a Title VII settlement agreement due to the comprehensive statutory scheme established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court’s view remains the same here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).