William F. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corporation, and David C. Tjosvold

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce evidence, arguments or legal theories that could have been presented earlier
• stating that motions for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce new evidence or legal theories that \could have been adduced during pendency of the summary judgment motion.\ (citation omitted)
• stating that motions for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce new evidence or legal theories that “could have been adduced during pendency of the summary judgment motion.” (citation omitted)
• holding district court did not err in failing to grant defendant’s motion to alter the judgment because defendant could have raised its argument regarding the appropriate remedy while the motion for summary judgment was first pending
• holding district court did not err in failing to grant defendant's motion to alter the judgment because defendant could have raised its argument regarding the appropriate remedy while the motion for summary judgment was first pending
• holding district court did not err in failing to grant defendant’s motion to alter the judgment because defendant could have raised its argument regarding the appropriate remedy while the motion for summary judgment was first pending

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).