Carlson v. Warren (In re Warren)
This text of 70 B.R. 124 (Carlson v. Warren (In re Warren)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
“[A] ‘motion for reconsideration,’ although filed within 10 days, contained no request to alter or amend judgment (though maybe that was implicit) but merely informed the court that the movant would file at a later date a memorandum of law. Essentially, then, the motion was a request for extension of time, and extensions of time are not permitted for Rule 59(e) motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b).” A.D. Weiss Lithograph Company v. Illinois Adhesive Products, 705 F.2d 249, 250 (7th Cir.1983). It is therefore
ORDERED that the above and foregoing “motion for reconsideration” be, and it is hereby, DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 B.R. 124, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-warren-in-re-warren-mowd-1986.