ANDERSONS, INC. v. Consol, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although “motions to reconsider are not ill-founded step-children of the federal court’s procedural arsenal,” they are “extraordinary in nature and, because they run contrary to notions of finality and repose, should be discouraged.” In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury, 854 F.Supp. 1403, 1406 (S.D.Ind.1994). To be sure, “a court can always take a second look” at a prior decision; but “it need not and should not do so in the vast majority of instances,” especially where such motions “merely restyle or re-hash the initial issues.” Id. at 1407 . It is not the function of a motion to reconsider either to renew arguments already considered and rejected by a court or “to proffer a new legal theory or new evidence to support a prior argu ment when the legal theory or argument could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered during the initial consideration of the issue.” Id. at 1408 . Where, as is the case with much of the instant motion, “[plaintiff] views the law in a light contrary to that of this Court,” its “proper recourse” is not by way of a motion for reconsideration “but appeal to the Sixth Circuit.” Dana Corp. v. United States, 764 F.Supp. 482, 489 (N.D.Ohio 1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 252 F. Supp. 2d 524 - Walker v. Conseco Services, LLC