246 F. Supp. 2d 1256 - Bryan v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 134 · 28 U.S.C. § 143 · 28 U.S.C. § 151 (Bankruptcy Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 152 · 28 U.S.C. § 453 · 28 U.S.C. § 463 · 28 U.S.C. § 501 · 28 U.S.C. § 516
Relies on Barrett v. United States · Bolin v. Story · Booth v. Fletcher · Fry v. Melaragno · O'Neal v. Kennamer
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Parties therefore may not employ a motion for reconsideration as a vehicle to present new arguments or evidence that should have been raised earlier, introduce novel legal theories, or repackage familiar arguments to test whether the Court will change its mind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to offer new legal theories or evidence that could have been presented in conjunction with the previously filed motion or response, unless a reason is given for failing to raise the issue at an earlier stage in the litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.