Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc.
90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,262 timesHolding that motions for reconsideration do not provide an opportunity to litigate previously rejected arguments
Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales
906 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,119 timesHolding that a motion for reconsideration performs a valuable function where the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension
Weiss v. Cooley
230 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 700 timesHolding that a claim was properly dismissed when "there was no set of facts that could be proven, consistent with [plaintiff's] allegations, that would support relief"
Quaker Alloy Casting v. Gulfco Industries, Inc.
123 F.R.D. 282 (N.D. Ill. 1988) Cited 452 timesDetermining that a motion to reconsider two conclusions drawn in an opinion reflected "a fundamental misunderstanding of the limited appropriateness of motions for reconsideration"
Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Assoc
101 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 106 timesHolding a state-law claim that employer failed to pay wages due within ten days preempted because the wages were based on the ratification date of the CBA and the CBA need to be interpreted to determine that date
In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury, (S.D.Ind. 1994)
854 F. Supp. 1403 (S.D. Ind. 1994) Cited 110 timesMisc. No. 93-63. Grand Jury Subpoena No. KMS-41-02. May 10, 1994. Richard L. Darst, Mantel Cohen Garelick Reiswerg Fishmann, Indianapolis, IN, for Subpoenaed Medical Corp. Kathleen M. Sweeney, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Indianapolis, IN, for Government. Entry Regarding United States' Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Court's Order Regarding Grand Jury Subpoena TINDER, District Judge. This is the second time issues surrounding the grand jury subpoena (No. KMS-41-02) of [the Corporation]
United National Ins. Co. v. Fasteel, Inc.
550 F. Supp. 2d 814 (N.D. Ill. 2008) Cited 8 timesNo. 06-C-6216. March 18, 2008. Daniel John McMahon, Daniel Ephriam Tranen, Geoffrey Alexander Belzer, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Timothy Harold Okal, Spina, McGuire Okal, Elmwood Park, IL, for Fasteel, Inc. Michael S. Fiorentino, Stephen Fiorentino, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Vito Recchia. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID H. COAR, District Judge. Plaintiff United National Insurance Company ("Plaintiff," "UNIC," or "insurer") has brought suit against Defendants
Washington Township Fire Department v. Beltway Surgery Center
911 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 6 timesConcluding that the Board's interpretation of the applicable statutes was reasonable and agreeing with that interpretation
Sans v. Monticello Insurance
718 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 11 timesIn Sans v. Monticello Ins. Co., 718 N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), trans. denied, this court concluded that the underlying plaintiff in a negligence action was a properly named defendant in a declaratory action brought by the insurance company because the plaintiff "clearly has an interest" in the case.
Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Associates, (N.D.Ind. 1996)
926 F. Supp. 1381 (N.D. Ind. 1996) Cited 10 timesStating that a motion to reconsider cannot simply recast and clarify arguments that have already been presented to and considered by the court
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,650 times 85 Legal AnalysesRecognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities