-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-02
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because she failed to present newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or a need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-08-27
The court granted the USA's motion to alter judgment, finding a manifest error of fact regarding penalty calculations, and amended the judgment to reflect a lower penalty amount plus accrued interest and late fees.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-07-07
The court denied the petitioner's motion to reconsider the denial of his § 2255 motion, finding no newly discovered evidence or manifest error of law or fact.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-06-15
The court denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present new evidence or law, instead rearguing previously decided issues.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-06-15
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment because it failed to present any valid grounds for reconsideration or relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-14
The court held that a Certificate of Appealability (COA) is not warranted for the denial of the motion to alter or amend judgment because the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
The court held that the inmate's motion for reconsideration was denied because the prior dismissal under the "three-strikes" rule was not overly broad and did not constitute manifest error.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-20
The court held that a Rule 59(e) motion is not an appeal and cannot be used to relitigate issues or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
-
171 F. Supp. 2d 1319·
M.D. Fla.·
2001-08-22
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment to include post-hearing interest and denied the defendants' petition to vacate the judgment, finding no lack of jurisdiction or merit to their arguments.
-
985 F.2d 425·
8th Cir.·
1993-02-05
The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is premature, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
984 F.2d 622·
4th Cir.·
1993-01-26
The court held that public housing tenants have enforceable rights to challenge procedural violations of HUD utility allowance regulations under the Brooke Amendment, and that genuine issues of fact existed regarding the reasonableness of HABC's allowances.
-
939 F.2d 318·
6th Cir.·
1991-04-30
The District Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary's determination of disability benefit amounts because the claimant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
-
931 F.2d 380·
6th Cir.·
1991-04-29
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because the grounds presented were covered by other subsections of Rule 60(b) with a one-year time limit, which had expired. Therefore, the appeal from the order granting rel
-
866 F.2d 1002·
8th Cir.·
1989-01-26
The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a postjudgment motion for contribution because it was not filed within the time allowed for appeal.
-
663 F.2d 78·
10th Cir.·
1981-11-04
The court held that the trial court's denial of a Rule 59(e) motion without specific reasons or findings necessitates a remand for clarification.