Schiefer v. U.S.

24 Citing cases

  1. Dozier v. Perry

    CV 124-009 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2024)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007) . Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  2. Beckodro v. Se. Tire & Servs.

    CV 624-021 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2024)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  3. Porter v. Freeman

    CV 123-135 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2024)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted)

  4. United States ex rel. S. Equip. & Servs. v. Windamir Dev.

    CV 422-047 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 11, 2024)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007) (citations omitted). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  5. Horry v. United States

    CV 123-073 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2024)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  6. Sapp v. Burke Cnty. Det. Ctr.

    CV 123-019 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 8, 2023)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) “cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation and alterations omitted)

  7. Keil v. Broome

    CV 121-170 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2023)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  8. Driver v. Dep't of Corr.

    CV 622-041 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2022)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  9. AU Health Sys. v. Affiliated Fm Ins. Co.

    CV 121-019 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 7, 2022)

    Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is justified when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). However, this Rule "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."

  10. Turner v. Martin

    CV 120-050 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 16, 2021)

    Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Plaintiff is proceeding under the theory that the Court must correct a clear error of law. (Doc. 33, at 1.)