In re Marble

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Ricks

    Case No. 13-00264-TLM (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 16, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945; Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001); Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 664-65 (9th Cir. 1999).Marble v. United States, 2008 WL 4545207, *1 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 2, 2008). See also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) ("A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation."); Wahlin, 2011 WL 1063196 at *2-3 (addressing standards for manifest error of law, manifest error of fact, and manifest injustice); Elsaesser v. Fehrs (In re Fehrs), 2008 WL 4443062, *2-3 (Bankr. D. Idaho Sept. 26, 2008).

  2. In re Sterling Mining Company

    Case No. 09-20178-TLM (Bankr. D. Idaho Aug. 24, 2009)   Cited 4 times

    Id. at 834 (quoting In re Couch-Russell, 04.1 I.B.C.R. 9, 10 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2004)). See also Marble v. United States (In re Marble), 2008 WL 4545207, at *1 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 2, 2008); Elsaesser v. Fehrs (In re Fehrs), 08.4 I.B.C.R. 153, 153-54, 2008 WL 4443062, at *2-*3 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2008). Additional authorities relevant to consideration of Rule 59 motions were outlined in an earlier Memorandum of Decision in the instant case, Doc. No. 205, denying an SPMI motion to reconsider.