Opinion

Arthur v. King

  • 500 F.3d 1335
  • 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22533
  • 2007 WL 2744884
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Filed
Sep 21, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Barkett
On the bench
Birch, Black, Barkett
Cited by
635 cases

explaining that a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate matters that already have been considered or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the judgment was entered

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate matters that already have been considered or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the judgment was entered
  • explaining that Rule 59(e) motions may not be “used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citation modified)
  • stating a motion to alter or amend a judgment may not be used “ ‘to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment’ ”
  • explaining that, in an appeal from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we must “accept[ ] the complaint’s allegations as true and constru[e] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BARKETT, Circuit Judge,

concurring in result:

I agree that Arthur is not legally entitled to relief on this claim.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.