Legal Opinion
Stang v. Smith
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided October 20, 1998No. 98-C-739PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ADELMAN, District Judge.
On August 21,1998,1 summarily dismissed petitioner Thomas J. Stang’s habeas petition pursuant to rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases because I found that Stang had missed the one-year filing deadline of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Stang moves for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration serves a very limited purpose in federal civil litigation; it should be used only “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir.1987). Stang argues that I made an error of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Joseph F. Cada v. Baxter Healthcare CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- Frank T. Miller v. New Jersey State Department of Corrections Donald E. Lewis, Warden/administrator Attorney General of the State of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Calderon v. United States District CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Miller v. MarrCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Rothwell Cotton Company, a Texas Corporation v. Rosenthal & Company, a Partnership, and Fgl Commodity Services, Inc., an Iowa CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rhodes v. SenkowskiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- United States v. GriffinDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1999