United States ex rel. Corbin v. Banmiller

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a party cannot show clear error or manifest injustice by “merely reargu[ing] points previously considered and rejected by the [c]ourt”
• “[T]ypicality is often met when, in proving her case, the representative plaintiff establishes the elements needed to prove the class members’ case.”
• “Put differently, the legality — or ultimate reasonableness — of [defendants’] charges can only be determined by looking at the specific bills in question and analyzing them” individually
• “to the extent Plaintiff ... tries to raise new arguments and point to new evidence that could have been raised earlier, this is insufficient grounds to satisfy the clear error or manifest injustice standard for granting a motion for reconsideration”
• “[T]o the extent [the movant] 3 Rule 54(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).