57 Cited authorities

Little v. Liquid Air Corp.
37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 12,448 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki
552 U.S. 389 (2008) Cited 1,121 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the EEOC "acted within its authority in formulating the rule that a filing is deemed a charge if the document reasonably can be construed to request agency action and appropriate relief on the employee’s behalf"
Templet v. Hydrochem Inc.
367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,339 times
Holding evidence was not newly discovered because "the underlying facts were well within the [party's] knowledge prior to the district court's entry of judgment"
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P.
684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 1,245 times
Holding reconsideration "is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues . . . securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple."
Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc.
910 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 2,233 times
Holding that trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision on an interlocutory order "for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law"
Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc.
6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 1,186 times
Holding that it would be an abuse of discretion for district court to grant 60(b) relief where party's untimeliness was solely because of their attorney's carelessness or misapprehension of the applicable rules of court
Simon v. U.S.
891 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,087 times
Holding that the defense was waived when it contained more than a pure issue of law and would have changed plaintiff’s trial strategy
In re Transtexas Gas Corp.
303 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 680 times
Holding that bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to supplement plan confirmation order that was then pending on appeal
National Ass'n, Govern. Emp. v. City Pub. Serv
40 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 805 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts have no jurisdiction to consider Title VII claims as to which a plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies
Ross v. Marshall
426 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 537 times
Holding that a Rule 59(e) motion must must "clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence" and "cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued"
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,731 times 67 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
28 U.S.C. § 1746 Cited 10,106 times 17 Legal Analyses
Permitting the use of declarations instead
Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 Cited 3,652 times 10 Legal Analyses
Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy
Section 7502 - Timely mailing treated as timely filing and paying
26 U.S.C. § 7502 Cited 2,455 times 7 Legal Analyses
Stating that the date a return is postmarked "shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment"

Stevenson v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

57 Cited authorities

Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact

Holding that the EEOC "acted within its authority in formulating the rule that a filing is deemed a charge if the document reasonably can be construed to request agency action and appropriate relief on the employee’s behalf"

Holding evidence was not newly discovered because "the underlying facts were well within the [party's] knowledge prior to the district court's entry of judgment"

Holding reconsideration "is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues . . . securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple."

Holding that trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision on an interlocutory order "for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law"

Holding that it would be an abuse of discretion for district court to grant 60(b) relief where party's untimeliness was solely because of their attorney's carelessness or misapprehension of the applicable rules of court

Holding that the defense was waived when it contained more than a pure issue of law and would have changed plaintiff’s trial strategy

Holding that bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to supplement plan confirmation order that was then pending on appeal

Holding that courts have no jurisdiction to consider Title VII claims as to which a plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies

Holding that a Rule 59(e) motion must must "clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence" and "cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued"

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

Permitting the use of declarations instead

Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy

Stating that the date a return is postmarked "shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment"