blinggugl.blogg.se - Sample motion for reconsideration federal court arkansas

#SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FEDERAL COURT ARKANSAS TRIAL#

The Court of Appeals noted that,Įven assuming plaintiff did not reasonably anticipate the evidence needed at the Section 108 hearing, a Rule 59 motion is not intended to be a second bite at the apple where the evidence was in plaintiff’s possession or existed at the time of hearing and plaintiff was afforded “every opportunity to argue all relevant issues in a single…hearing.”īecause the motion was not, therefore, a proper Rule 59 motion in substance, it did not toll the 30-day appeal period, and the appeal was dismissed. Although the Town’s Rule 59 motion purported to seek consideration of new evidence, the record showed that the evidence “was admittedly available at the time of the hearing” and that the Town just had not anticipated that it would be necessary at the hearing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the 108 Judgment as untimely because it had been filed outside the 30-day appeal period. The Town then appealed the 108 Judgment and the denial of the Rule 59 motion. Ten days later, on October 28, the Town filed a motion under Rule 59, which was denied on January 24, 2017. The judge concluded as a matter of law that the taking was for a private benefit and entered judgment to that effect on October 18, 2016.

#SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FEDERAL COURT ARKANSAS TRIAL#

Prior to trial, the trial court held a “108 hearing” to determine whether the taking was for a public or private benefit. Rubin’s property so it could run utilities to an adjacent property for development of a subdivision. The Town of Apex filed a condemnation action to acquire an easement across Ms.

Rule 59 is not to be used for a “second bite at the apple.” Town of Apex v.

These three recent published opinions are our newest examples of this outcome: But if a court determines that Rule 59 was not the appropriate vehicle for remedy sought, the appeal period will not have been tolled. A proper Rule 59 motion tolls the period for appeal of the underlying judgment. If, for example, the motion does not provide proper notice of the grounds for relief, or if it is being used merely as a general “motion for reconsideration,” it may not be considered “proper.” As I’ve discussed in previous posts ( here and here), North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a trial judge to order a new trial (or, through Rule 59(e), amendment of judgment) for a number of reasons, including prejudicial irregularity, jury misconduct, newly-discovered evidence, insufficient evidence to justify the verdict, prejudicial error of law, and other bases.

To end the week, I’ll point out three recent Court of Appeals opinions that remind us that a Rule 59 (“new trial”) motion will not toll an appeal period if the motion does not actually seek proper Rule 59 relief.