Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Rosenthal & Company, a Partnership, and Fgl Commodity Services, Inc., an Iowa Corporation v. Rothwell Cotton Company, Inc., a Texas Corporation

Rosenthal & Co., a P’ship, & Fgl Commodity Servs., Inc., an Iowa Corp. v. Rothwell Cotton Co., Inc., a Tex. Corp., 835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-12-11
Topic
commercial

How later courts describe this case

  • stating that Rule 54(b) motions cannot “be employed as a vehicle to introduce new evidence that could have been adduced during the pendency of the ... motion. . . nor serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.”
  • stating that a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) may not serve as a vehicle to identify facts or raise legal arguments which could have been, but were not, raised or adduced during the pendency of the motion for which reconsideration was sought
  • affirming district court’s denial of motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b)
  • providing nearly identical standard for motion under Rule 59(e)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rosenthal & Company, a Partnership, and Fgl Commodity Services, Inc., an Iowa Corporation v. Rothwell Cotton Company, Inc., a Texas Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
70 opinions
ROSENTHAL COMPANY v. ROTHWELL COTTON COMPANY,835 F.2d 710(7th Cir. 1987)
ROSENTHAL COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP, AND FGL COMMODITY SERVICES, INC., AN
IOWA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ROTHWELL COTTON COMPANY, INC., A
TEXAS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 86-1510.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
December 11, 1987.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Prentice H. Marshall, Judge.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and FLAUM, Circuit Judge and REYNOLDS, Senior District Judgefn*
[1]ORDER
[2] On consideration of the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearingen bancfiled in the above-entitled cause by Defendant-Appellant Rothwell Cotton Company, Inc., no judge in active service has requested a vote thereon, and all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Accordingly,

[3] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing be, and the same is, DENIED.

[4] In addition, the court amends its opinion of August 24, 1987 as follows:

[5] Footnote 1, on page 249, should read as follows: delete everything after "reconsider in the district court." on page 6; insert instead: "`Arguments not raised in the briefs are waived. . . .'United States v. Hornick,815 F.2d 1156,1159(7th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Because Rothwell ignored this contention until oral argument, the court will not consider what role,Page 711if any, Rosenthal's "judicial admission" played in this action."

[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.Page 1190
  1. The Honorable John W. Reynolds, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, is sitting by designation. ↩