holding that, when facts alleged in a second postjudgment motion were known to the movant when he filed his original postjudgment motion, his second post-judgment motion had to be construed as a motion to reconsider the denial of his first postjudgment motion rather than as a Rule 60(b) motion
How later courts described this case
- holding that, when facts alleged in a second postjudgment motion were known to the movant when he filed his original postjudgment motion, his second post-judgment motion had to be construed as a motion to reconsider the denial of his first postjudgment motion rather than as a Rule 60(b) motion
- stating that “[wjhere the facts alleged in the motion to reconsider were known by the moving party at the time of his original motion, Rule 60(b) does not authorize a motion to reconsider”
- noting that, in the usual case, a trial court has no jurisdiction to "reconsider" the denial of a postjudgment motion
- “A motion to reconsider cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I am in complete agreement with the majority opinion. My only purpose in writing specially is to briefly summarize and emphasize the holding of the Court.
If a party has his post-judgment motion denied, the review of that denial is by appeal. If a party has his post-judgment motion granted and a new judgment is entered, then the aggrieved party has the opportunity to file appropriate post-judgment motions. For example, see, A.R.Civ.P. 50 (c)(2).