A motion for rehearing must be served not later than 15 days after the date of filing of the. A timely motion may be amended to state new grounds in the discretion of the court at any time before the motion is determined. Why not Appeal the Decision Instead? While the judge could certainly decide to deny your motion for rehearing, you should.
The granting or denial of rehearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, but it is never an arbitrary decision. As indicated above, when the motion is filed by one against whom a summary judgment has been entered, the discretion not to grant is narrowed and every disposition should be indulged in favor of granting the motion.
FOR REHEARING A hearing was held on (date) and I am requesting a re-hearing pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530. This Motion for Rehearing is being filed within 15 days from the date of the filing of the judgment or order. The reasons I am requesting a rehearing are: TO VACATE.
The motion must comply with the requirements for filing a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc under FRAP 35, FRAP 40, and LRs 35.1 and 40.1. See id. If the Court substantively amends a decision, the time for filing a petition or motion begins to run from the date the amended decision is entered.
The rehearing rule clearly states that “(t)he motion shall not re-argue the merits of the court’s order.” 8 As Justice Arthur England once opined, “(I)t is not the office of rehearing to invite a complete re-analysis of all that has gone before.” 9 A ppellate decisions note too frequently that most motions for rehearing are mere condensed versions of points previously argued in the.
Appellate motions for rehearing are a challenge. You need to convey that the Justices have made a critical error, without crossing an invisible line to being combative. So, when the Texas Supreme Court grants rehearing, I make a point to read the motions to see what caught the Court’s eye. Last week, it granted rehearing in Mabon.
MOTION FOR REHEARING Following oral argument to a three-judge panel of this Court, the Court sua sponte considered and decided this appeal en banc, expressly addressing only one of the issues raised on appeal in its en banc opinion. Specifically, on that issue, this Court held: Based on Vest’s clarification of Blanchard and reliance on.
In Fitchner, the appellate court considered a new argument raised in plaintiff’s 1.530 rehearing motion that followed the dismissal of its complaint. Although the trial court acknowledged the new argument established the dismissal was based on a statute that did not even apply, it denied the motion for rehearing after concluding the new argument was untimely.