Case Explained: Swepson v. Aimbridge Employee Service Corp.
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
Case Explained: Swepson v. Aimbridge Employee Service Corp.
-
ナレーター：
-
著者：
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Filed: 2026-09-23
Docket: 6:23-CV-01040-HLT)
The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Swepson’s third post-judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment and awarding costs to her former employer. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), as Swepson merely reasserted arguments previously rejected by the district court and this court, which are barred from relitigation under the doctrine of law of the case. Regarding the award of costs under Rule 54(d), the court found no abuse of discretion because Swepson failed to explain why the district court’s decision was wrong, effectively waiving her challenges regarding the nature of the expenses and her in forma pauperis status. Consequently, the judgment stands, and Swepson remains liable for the awarded costs while being precluded from further duplicative filings on these issues.
Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.