§Why CasetextPricing

SCO Grp, et al v. Intl Bus Mach Inc

MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Motion to Reopen the Case re Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Hearing, Memorandum Decision and Memorandum in Support

4 Cited authorities

  1. Servants of Paraclete v. Does

    204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000)   Cited 3,292 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

  2. Warren v. Am. Bankers Ins. of Florida

    507 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2007)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that a Rule 59 "motion to reconsider" a judgment, filed before a separate document, did not waive Rule 58

  3. Carter v. Bigelow

    869 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (D. Utah 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Relying on In re Olesen, 447 Fed.Appx. 868, 871 n. 4 (10th Cir.2011)

  4. Hemminger v. Beam

    Case No. CIV-11-1274-D (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2013)

    Case No. CIV-11-1274-D 04-19-2013 JOHN PAUL HEMMINGER, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN D. BEAM, et al., Defendants TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion, captioned "Combined Reconsideration of Motion for Stay and Accompanying Motion for Extension of Time to File Pleadings" [Doc. No. 105], filed pro se on April 17, 2013. Liberally construed, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its ruling on his prior motion for a stay of proceedings and a 30-day extension of filing deadlines. See