United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying debtor’s motion for relief from judgment
• ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to amend the complaint because the evidence introduced was previously available, but the party failed to plead it
• explaining that a Rule 59(e) motion cannot serve as a vehicle for new legal theories or arguments “which could have been offered or raised prior to the entry of judgment”
• noting that a Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment”
• explaining that Rule 59(e) motions “serve [a] limited function” including “to present newly discovered evidence,” but does not include “new evidence . .. which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment”
• stating that the Eighth Circuit “has consistently held that Rule 59(e) motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to the entry of judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).