Evans et al v. Walter Industries, Inc. et al
1:2005cv01017 |
May 16, 2005 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
Eastern Office |
Karon O Bowdre |
P.I.: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 324 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Finally, because CFNEA is not a party to the action, it is in no position to move the court to reconsider its Order. See Summit Medical Center, 294 F. Supp. 2d at 1355 (motions to reconsider are only available when a pa rty presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.) (emphasis added). And even if CNFEA were a party, it did not show "an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice" regarding the court's decision. See id. Therefore, the court DENIES the Community Foundation of Northeast Anniston's Motion to Reconsider. (Doc. 322). Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 7/30/2018. (KEK) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Evans et al v. Walter Industries, Inc. et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.