United States v. One Case of Cashmere Shawls

How courts have described this case

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

• adopting the same standard for reviewing a motion to reconsider as the standard for reviewing the denial of a motion to alter or amend under SUPER. Ct. R. 50
• “[T]his Court has repeatedly held ‘that the substance of a motion, and not its caption, shall determine under which rule that motion is construed.’”
• “[S]o long as the Superior Court possesses the authority to issue an order granting or denying relief, it unquestionably possesses the authority to alter its decision prior to entry of judgment.”
• “[Ajbsent any explicit statutory or constitutional authority to the contrary, the common law confers trial courts with the discretion to revise any interlocutory order at any time prior to entry of a final judgment”
• “[T]he Superior Court possess[es] the authority . . . to modify or set aside [any] order prior to entry of a final judgment.” (citing Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983))
• “[A] party need not actually attach admissible evidence to present the court with ‘matters outside the pleadings,’ for unsworn representations of counsel as to factual matters — which are not themselves evidence,... are sufficient to transform a Federal Rule 12(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).