11 Cited authorities

Max's Seafood Cafe, ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros
176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 4,123 times
Holding motion for reconsideration may be granted only if movant can show at least one of the following: there has been an intervening change in controlling law; availability of new evidence not available when court made its decision; or need to correct clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice
Servants of Paraclete v. Does
204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) Cited 3,289 times
Holding that district court can grant Rule 59 motions when there has been a change in the law since the prior judgment was issued, the movant presents new evidence that was previously unavailable, or there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice
White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security
455 U.S. 445 (1982) Cited 1,362 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding attorney's fees request inappropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
Osterneck v. Ernst Whinney
489 U.S. 169 (1989) Cited 914 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest “constitute[d] a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ”
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki
779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) Cited 2,664 times
Holding that "the opportunity to consult counsel vitiates a duress defense"
Hightower v. Texas Hosp. Ass'n
65 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 186 times
Deciding whether a benefit plan was a “governmental plan” at the time it was terminated and members of the plan were denied payments from the resulting surplus of funds
Texas Savings v. Federal Housing Finance Bd.
201 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 15 times
Finding that the language "could not be plainer" and the "alleged omission of review under this chapter is not subject to review by this Court"
Beverly v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Civil Action Number 3:07CV469 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2008) Cited 7 times
Civil Action Number 3:07CV469. January 11, 2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD WILLIAMS, Senior District Judge This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff has responded, the Court has heard oral argument, and the matter is ripe for adjudication. I. FACTS On August 18, 2005, plaintiff Stephen Beverly ("plaintiff") applied for a position as an associate at defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("defendant")'s store in Newport News, Virginia. Plaintiff returned for
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. N.Y.S. Dept. of Env.
831 F. Supp. 57 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) Cited 16 times
No. 92-CV-869. July 13, 1993. Kirkland, Ellis Law Firm, Washington, DC (Daniel F. Attridge, of counsel), for Plaintiff. Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of NY, Albany, N Y (Joan Leary Matthews and Helene G. Goldberger, Asst. Attys. Gen., for N Y State defendants. Morgan, Lewis Law Firm, Washington, DC (William H. Lewis, Jr., and David Deal, of counsel), for intervenor-defendant American Petroleum Institute. Environmental Defense Fund, Nat. Headquarters, New York City (James T.B. Tripp, of counsel)
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,342 times 65 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 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports
15 U.S.C. § 1681b Cited 1,744 times 101 Legal Analyses
Granting permission to obtain credit report where person "intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation"

Johnson v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that district court can grant Rule 59 motions when there has been a change in the law since the prior judgment was issued, the movant presents new evidence that was previously unavailable, or there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice

Holding attorney's fees request inappropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

Holding that a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest “constitute[d] a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ”

Holding that "the opportunity to consult counsel vitiates a duress defense"

Deciding whether a benefit plan was a “governmental plan” at the time it was terminated and members of the plan were denied payments from the resulting surplus of funds

Finding that the language "could not be plainer" and the "alleged omission of review under this chapter is not subject to review by this Court"

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

Granting permission to obtain credit report where person "intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation"