Losing parties regularly file motions for reconsideration. Courts routinely deny them.
(The Michigan Supreme Court’s online form proactively warns: “Generally, a motion for reconsideration that merely repeats the same arguments made in prior pleadings will not be granted. The moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the Court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition will result by correcting the error.”)
A Michigan Court of Appeals panel broke the routine last week with a full-candor opinion in an ordinary unemployment case. The appealing claimant was represented by the University of Michigan Law School’s Workers’ Rights Clinic. In considering a motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals panel realized: Our original decision got it wrong.
A new opinion was issued after eight months of additional review. The wait was worth it. Among the 72 published and unpublished May 20, 2021 opinions, Barnowski v Cleary Univ and Unemployment Ins Agency stood out.
The panel’s word choice added a few marbles in the public and bar’s marble jar of trust.
Others—including legal research and writing professors—were interested to learn more. And learn more we did!
Every comment about the court’s approach to its reconsideration opinion was positive:
And well after 50,000 impressions on my original tweet, the AP posted a story early Saturday evening.
Well done, your Honors. An example of what Brené Brown meant.
