Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Commission
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
PADOVA, District Judge.
Defendants move to reconsider and vacate portions of my Opinion and Order of November 16, 1992 (the “Opinion”), 808 F.Supp. 416. For the following reasons, I will deny their motion. 1
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (8d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct. 2895, 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986). Defendants offer no newly discovered evidence, but contend that the Opinion contains the following three errors of law: (1)…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestown TownshipDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Smolow v. HaferDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
- Geotes v. Mississippi Board of Veterinary MedicineDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1997