Witzke v. Hiller

How courts have described this case

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

• denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration because he did not demonstrate “any palpable defect” in the court’s order and therefore “fail[ed] to meet his burden” under Local Rule 7.1
• articulating the standard for a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(h)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Elite Health Ctrs., Inc.
  E.D. Michigan· 2018-10-11· cited 5×
• Carhartt, Inc. v. Innovative Textiles, Inc.
  E.D. Michigan· 2018-12-04· cited 1×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lee Hampton v. Ron Hobbs
  Sixth Circuit· 1997-02-13· cited 459×
• James R. Kincade v. Emmit L. Sparkman, Warden Commonwealth of Kentucky, Anthony L. Hereford v. United States
  Sixth Circuit· 1997-06-26· cited 429×
• Arthur X. Carson v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-06-16· cited 372×
• Lokmar Y. Abdul-Wadood v. Sylvester Nathan, Lokmar Y. Abdul-Wadood v. Conrado Delrosario and Adriane Jaggers, Lokmar Y. Abdul-Wadood v. Todd Kamleiter
  Seventh Circuit· 1996-08-02· cited 237×
• Witzke v. Hiller
  E.D. Michigan· 1997-05-21· cited 41×
• Lyon v. Vande Krol
  S.D. Iowa· 1996-09-09· cited 20×