From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nextera Energy, Inc. v. Elliott Assocs., L.P.

Supreme Court of the United States
Apr 29, 2019
139 S. Ct. 1620 (2019)

Summary

holding that while the bankruptcy rules do not expressly authorize motions for reconsideration, bankruptcy courts, like any other federal court, possess inherent authority, and such authority permits courts to reconsider prior interlocutory orders at any point during which the litigation continues, as long as the court retains jurisdiction over the case

Summary of this case from Karagjozi v. Bruck (In re Kara Homes, Inc.)

Opinion

No. 18–957.

04-29-2019

NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., petitioner, v. ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al.


Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.


Summaries of

Nextera Energy, Inc. v. Elliott Assocs., L.P.

Supreme Court of the United States
Apr 29, 2019
139 S. Ct. 1620 (2019)

holding that while the bankruptcy rules do not expressly authorize motions for reconsideration, bankruptcy courts, like any other federal court, possess inherent authority, and such authority permits courts to reconsider prior interlocutory orders at any point during which the litigation continues, as long as the court retains jurisdiction over the case

Summary of this case from Karagjozi v. Bruck (In re Kara Homes, Inc.)
Case details for

Nextera Energy, Inc. v. Elliott Assocs., L.P.

Case Details

Full title:NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., petitioner, v. ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al.

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: Apr 29, 2019

Citations

139 S. Ct. 1620 (2019)

Citing Cases

Re: S.P. Richards Co. v. Arora

Such a motion is not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor is it provided for in our Local…

Miller v. Matco Elec. Corp (In re NewStarcom Holdings Inc.)

Although we need not reach the motion for reconsideration, we are unpersuaded that the Bankruptcy Court…