32 Cited authorities

Katz v. United States
389 U.S. 347 (1967) Cited 12,481 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth would "ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication"
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988) Cited 3,130 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
Arizona v. California
460 U.S. 605 (1983) Cited 2,210 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights
Berger v. New York
388 U.S. 41 (1967) Cited 941 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding facially unconstitutional statute authorizing issuance of orders for electronic eavesdropping without probable cause
Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc.
90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,266 times
Holding 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 1,123 times
Holding 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
Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts of America
429 U.S. 823 (1976) Cited 239 times
Holding that there was no interception when the police listened to a tape of a telephone conversation previously recorded by one of the parties to the conversation
Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.
561 F. Supp. 656 (N.D. Ill. 1983) Cited 536 times
No. 82 C 2529. December 3, 1982. On Motion for Reconsideration, March 10, 1983. Richard L. Horwitz, Drendel, Schanlaber, Horwitz Oakes, Aurora, Ill., for plaintiff. Gregory A. Friedman, Coffield, Ungaretti, Harris Slavin, Chicago, Ill., for Intern. Fidelity Ins. Co. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHADUR, District Judge. Keene Corporation ("Keene") has sued International Fidelity Insurance Company ("Fidelity") to enforce two surety agreements, each of which guaranteed contract performance by Chicago
Minch v. City of Chicago
486 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 198 times
Holding that although the complaint did not refer to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the district court was entitled to consider it because its authenticity was not disputed and the plaintiffs' claim rested on its terms
Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.
736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984) Cited 380 times
Noting that motions for reconsideration should not "serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time"
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,232 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,254 times 79 Legal Analyses
Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,784 times 42 Legal Analyses
Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 4 - Misprision of felony
18 U.S.C. § 4 Cited 1,351 times 10 Legal Analyses
Subjecting to criminal penalties anyone with "knowledge ... of a felony" and who "conceals" that felony from authorities

Valentine v. WideOpen West, Finance, LLC

32 Cited authorities

Holding that failure to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth would "ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication"

Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights

Holding facially unconstitutional statute authorizing issuance of orders for electronic eavesdropping without probable cause

Holding that motions for reconsideration do not provide an opportunity to litigate previously rejected arguments

Holding 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

Holding that there was no interception when the police listened to a tape of a telephone conversation previously recorded by one of the parties to the conversation

Holding that although the complaint did not refer to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the district court was entitled to consider it because its authenticity was not disputed and the plaintiffs' claim rested on its terms

Noting that motions for reconsideration should not "serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time"

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"

Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”

Subjecting to criminal penalties anyone with "knowledge ... of a felony" and who "conceals" that felony from authorities