Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Taylor

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 19, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRISTOPHER B. TAYLOR, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order issued February 8, 2007, denying Defendant's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence challenging legislative jurisdiction. (Doc. 280.)

Motions to reconsider "are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them," should be granted "as justice requires," FED.R.CIV.P.60 advisory committee's notes, and must be "consonant with equity." John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers, 258 U.S. 82, 90-91 (1922). See also 12JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL.,MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 60App.108[2] (3d ed. 2004). Such motions "serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665 (N.D. Ill. 1982),aff'd, 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). "Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, 90 F.3d at 1270.

Defendant has already filed a motion for reconsideration for new trial under newly discovered evidence. (Doc. 272.) Essentially, Defendant is requesting the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 276) denying Defendant's motion to reconsider. In its previous Order (Doc, 276), the Court carefully considered and rejected Defendant's arguments. The Court remains unpersuaded. To the extent Defendant's motion contains new arguments, further, those arguments could have been previously asserted and are improper at this juncture. Id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David RHerndon United States District Judge

20070319

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.