From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mount v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 1, 1865
32 N.Y. 702 (N.Y. 1865)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, it was stated that a motion for reargument should be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute, or a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.

Summary of this case from Homar v. Am. Home Mortg. Acceptance, Inc.
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

June Term, 1865

PER CURIAM.

Motions for re-argument should be founded on papers showing clearly that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by the court; or that the decision is in conflict with an express statute, or with a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.

Summaries of

Mount v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 1, 1865
32 N.Y. 702 (N.Y. 1865)

In Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, it was stated that a motion for reargument should be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute, or a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.

Summary of this case from Homar v. Am. Home Mortg. Acceptance, Inc.

In Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, it was stated that a motion for reargument should be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute, or a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court Was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.

Summary of this case from Homar v. Am. Home Mortg. Acceptance, Inc.

In Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, it was stated that a motion for reargument should be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute, or a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.

Summary of this case from Specialized Realty Servs., LLC v. Maikisch

In Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, it was stated that a motion for reargument should be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute, or a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.

Summary of this case from Makan Land Development-Three, LLC v. Prokopov
Case details for

Mount v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:MOUNT v . MITCHELL

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 1, 1865

Citations

32 N.Y. 702 (N.Y. 1865)

Citing Cases

WELDON v. DE LISLE

This case was submitted on the 14th of March, 1896. Appellant now moves for a reargument, and one of the…

Wallace v. Dinniny

Hence a reargument is not to be ordered. Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N.Y. 702. That there was no evidence in the…

15 Citing Cases