The following excerpt is from Amara v. Cigna Corp., No. 13-447-cv (Lead), No. 13-526 (XAP) (2nd Cir. 2014):
intervening decision that favor relief" and because its finding was "necessarily rejected by an appellate court's reasoning." Appellants' Br. at 25 (citing United States v. Minicone, 994 F.2d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1993)). We are not persuaded that the district court failed to explain its reasoning to the extent required by law or that it exceeded its discretion.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.