Brunson Communications, Inc. v. Arbitron, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BAYLSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff has moved for Reconsideration and Clarification in part, regarding the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated December 31, 2002, inter alia, dismissing Plaintiffs antitrust claims and giving Plaintiff leave to amend its claims for negligence and disparagement.
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 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct. 2895, 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986). A court should grant a motion for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Harsco Corp. v. Lucjan ZlotnickiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
- Dumanski v. City of ErieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Smith v. City of ChesterDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- AHNERT v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORKDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2025
- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. AMERICAN FUTURE SYSTEMS, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
- FRAZIER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIADistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- FRAZIER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIADistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- POWELL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIADistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.