Motors for reconsideration are a procedural tool used to ask a court to revisit its ruling based on new facts, clear errors, or changes in law. This article explains typical grant rates, what influences them, and practical considerations for both federal and state courts in the United States. By examining common standards, judges’ discretion, and jurisdictional differences, readers will gain a clearer picture of the likelihood of success when filing a motion for reconsideration and how to structure a persuasive request.
Overview Of Motions For Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration invites a court to review a decision to correct manifest errors, misapprehensions of material facts, or misapplications of law. In federal practice, such motions often arise as Rule 59(e) motions to amend a judgment or Rule 60(b) motions for relief from a judgment. State courts have analogous provisions with varying labels and standards. The core objective is not to relitigate the entire case but to address specific grounds that undermine the previous ruling.
How Often Are They Granted: General Trends
Across jurisdictions, motions for reconsideration are generally granted only in a minority of cases. Federal data and court reports typically show grant rates clustered in the low single digits to the teens, depending on the motion type and circuit. In some circuits, Rule 59(e) requests may see higher grant rates than Rule 60(b) motions, but even then they are uncommon. State court figures vary widely, with grant rates often influenced by local rules, the availability of alternate relief, and the strength of newly presented arguments.
What Influences The Grant Rate
New controlling authority or evidence is a strong, frequently cited basis for granting a reconsideration. Courts are more receptive when the information was not previously available and could have affected the outcome. Clear errors of law or fact that are material to the decision also increase the likelihood of relief. Judicial discretion remains a central theme; even strong grounds can fail if the court determines the motion is a disguised request to relitigate.
Other factors include the timeliness of the motion, the scope of the challenge, and the potential prejudice to the opposing party. The specific wording of local or federal rules, the standard of review, and the judge’s posture toward post-judgment relief all shape outcomes.
Federal Versus State Practice
In federal courts, Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a judgment are generally used for mathematical or legal errors, while Rule 60(b) motions address more extraordinary relief, such as newly discovered evidence or fraud. Rule 59(e) motions are more frequently granted than Rule 60(b) motions, but both remain comparatively rare. State-level practice varies: some states grant reconsideration sparingly and distinguish between obvious errors and new substantive grounds, while others provide broader relief opportunities under their civil procedure codes.
Common Grounds For Granting A Reconsideration
Typical bases include: New evidence that could not have been found with reasonable diligence; Clear error in the court’s application of law; Misinterpretation of a controlling authority; New legal developments that would affect the outcome; and Fraud or misconduct affecting the judgment. Effective motions clearly demonstrate how the grounds would plausibly alter the decision without seeking to relitigate cases already decided.
Common Grounds For Denial
Most denials rest on the view that the party has not shown a legitimate basis for reconsideration or that the requested relief would undermine finality of the judgment. Courts often reject arguments that would reargue issues already addressed or that rely on updated facts that should have been raised earlier. Procedural defects — such as missed deadlines, inadequate notice, or improper framing — also lead to denial.
Practical Guidance For Filing A Motion For Reconsideration
To improve chances, provide a concise, well-structured motion that clearly identifies: the specific ground for reconsideration, cite to the record the exact errors, and explain the impact on the ruling. Attach relevant new authorities or evidence and avoid broad generalizations. Adherence to local rules and page limits is essential. Consider a brief that focuses on a few compelling points rather than a broad, re-litigation attempt.
Alternatives To Reconsideration
When a motion for reconsideration may face low odds, litigants can explore alternatives. Appeal is the primary post-trial remedy for error preservation, but it must be pursued within strict deadlines. Motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) or its state equivalents can address extraordinary circumstances such as fraud, misrepresentation, or excusable neglect. New trial requests on limited grounds may be available in some jurisdictions. Strategic counsel can evaluate which path best fits the case timeline and objectives.
Key Takeaways
Motions for reconsideration are typically granted in a small fraction of cases, with higher likelihood under Rule 59(e) than Rule 60(b) in federal courts. The strongest grounds involve new evidence, clear errors, or significant changes in controlling law. Jurisdictional rules matter greatly, so practitioners should closely follow local standards and deadlines. When contemplating a reconsideration, focus on precise, well-supported arguments rather than broad re-litigation to maximize the chance of a favorable outcome.