Marker International v. deBruler
District Court, D. Utah
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
SAM, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal. Upon review of the parties’ pleadings, documents, and memoranda, the court hold, rules, and finds as follows:
DECISION
The court notes at the outset that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a Motion for Reconsideration as requested by defendants. Defendants’ reference to the court’s Rule 42(b) discretionary power to dispose of a case in stages and to the interlocutory nature of rulings made at those…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- The Fleischmann Distilling Corp., a Corporation, Etc. v. Maier Brewing Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Chevron Chemical Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., a Texas Corporation, and Hi-Yield Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Keebler Company v. Rovira Biscuit Corporation, Keebler Company v. Rovira Biscuit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
- Beer Nuts, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Clover Club Foods Company, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Marker International, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Gregory Debruler, an Individual, Debco International Trading, Inc., and Marker Surf AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- University of Kansas v. SinksDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2008
- CrossFit, Inc. v. JenkinsDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2014
- HealthOne of Denver, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2012
- Coherent, Inc. v. Coherent Technologies, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.