Asking the Same Body to Reconsider
Asking the decision-maker to look again is quicker and cheaper than appealing, and it works on a much narrower set of grounds. The danger is that a reconsideration application consumes the appeal period without suspending it.
The rule in short
Reconsideration allows the body that made a decision to correct or revisit it, usually on limited grounds: a clear error, a material fact overlooked, a change in circumstances or a manifest injustice. It is faster and cheaper than an appeal and it is not a route for re-arguing the merits. Whether it suspends the appeal period is the critical question.
A decision-maker can frequently revisit their own decision, and the process is quick enough to be attractive and narrow enough to be misunderstood.
Grounds that succeed
A clear error on the face of the decision. An arithmetic mistake, a wrong date, a misdescribed party or a direction that does not say what was intended.
A material fact overlooked. Something that was before the decision-maker and was plainly not taken into account.
A point not addressed. Where an argument was made and the decision does not deal with it at all.
A change of circumstances. Where something has happened since that undermines the basis of the decision.
New evidence, sometimes. Where it could not have been produced earlier and would have changed the outcome.
A procedural irregularity. Where a party was not heard on something they should have been.
An order that does not match the decision. Which is a correction rather than a reconsideration, per an oral decision and a written one.
Manifest injustice. A general ground in some systems, applied sparingly.
Anything the rule specifies. Which is where the analysis ought to start rather than where it ends.
A decision made without a party present. Where somebody was absent and the decision proceeded, reconsideration is sometimes the quickest available route back.
The grounds that do not
Disagreement with the outcome. Which is what an appeal is for, and reconsideration is not a substitute.
Re-arguing points already made. The decision-maker considered them, and repetition rarely produces a different result.
Evidence that could have been produced. Where a party chose not to advance it or overlooked it through inattention.
A better argument thought of afterwards. Which is the commonest application of this kind and the least successful.
Dissatisfaction with reasoning. As distinct from an error, which is a distinction applications frequently blur.
A change of representation. New advisers seeing the matter differently is not a ground for anything.
A decision that has already been enforced. Where steps have been taken and completed, reconsideration is unlikely to achieve much even where a ground exists.
Commercial consequences. The severity of an outcome does not make it erroneous.
Delay dressed as reconsideration. Applications made to postpone the effect of a decision attract adverse comment.
Anything better suited to an appeal. Which is a genuine question, and using the wrong route wastes time that mattered.
An application made to delay enforcement. Where the real purpose is postponement rather than correction, that is usually apparent from the application itself.
| Ground | Reconsideration | Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Clear arithmetic error | Yes | Unnecessary |
| Fact overlooked | Yes | Possible |
| Point not addressed | Yes | Possible |
| Disagreement with reasoning | No | Yes |
| New argument thought of later | No | Rarely |
The timing question
Reconsideration has its own period. Frequently short, and running from the decision.
It may suspend the appeal period. In some systems a properly made application restarts or suspends the time for appealing.
It frequently does not. In which case the appeal period runs throughout, per the event that opens the appeal window.
The distinction is decisive. An applicant who assumed suspension can find the appeal period gone while awaiting a decision.
Establish it before applying. Which takes minutes and prevents the most damaging version of this error.
Consider filing both. A protective notice of appeal alongside a reconsideration application removes the risk entirely.
Watch the reconsideration decision. Which may itself carry an appeal period.
Do not let it drift. Applications awaiting a decision consume time that the appeal route needed.
Diarize both. The reconsideration period and the appeal period, entered separately and clearly.
Note which decision each runs from. Where a reconsideration produces a fresh decision, a new set of periods may start from it and the old ones may or may not survive.
The single most damaging error in this area is assuming a reconsideration application suspends the time for appealing. Where it does not, an applicant awaiting a decision can lose the appeal entirely.
Making the application
Identify the ground precisely. Naming which category the application falls into rather than describing dissatisfaction.
Point to the specific error. With a reference to the decision, the page and the passage.
Keep it short. Reconsideration applications are decided quickly and length works against them.
Show the material relied on. Where a fact was overlooked, identify where it appeared in the papers.
Explain the consequence. Why the error affects the outcome rather than merely existing.
Propose the correction. Specifically, so that the decision-maker has something to adopt.
Apply promptly. Reconsideration is a fast route and a slow application undermines that.
Tell the other side. Who will usually be given an opportunity to respond in any event.
Do not overreach. An application mixing a genuine error with a general complaint dilutes the genuine part of it.
Say what should happen next. Whether the decision should be varied, set aside or supplemented, so that the decision-maker has a clear proposal to act on.
Choosing between reconsideration and appeal
Reconsideration is faster. Weeks rather than months, which matters where a matter is continuing.
It is much cheaper. No appellate fee, no record, and frequently no hearing.
It has narrower grounds. Which is the trade-off, and it defeats most applications that should have been appeals.
It preserves the relationship with the timetable. An appeal frequently disrupts the underlying matter more.
Appeal reviews the decision. Reconsideration corrects it, which is a different exercise.
Appeal has a fixed deadline. Which is the reason the choice cannot be made slowly.
Both may be available. And filing protectively for the appeal while seeking reconsideration is frequently the right answer.
Reopening is a third route. Distinct from both, per reopening instead of appealing.
Take the decision quickly. Because the appeal period continues running while the choice is being considered.
Consider cost proportionality. For a decision of modest value, a reconsideration application may be the only route that makes any economic sense at all.
Reconsideration allows the body that made a decision to revisit it, on grounds narrower than those available on an appeal and through a process that is faster and much cheaper.
The grounds that succeed are a clear error, a material fact overlooked, a point not addressed, a change of circumstances and a procedural irregularity.
The grounds that fail are disagreement with the outcome, re-argument of points already made, evidence that could have been produced, and better arguments thought of afterwards.
Whether the application suspends the appeal period is the critical question, because an applicant who assumes it does can lose the appeal while awaiting a decision.
Where both routes are available, filing a protective notice of appeal alongside a reconsideration application removes the timing risk entirely and costs very little.
Points to carry away
- Grounds are narrower than on an appeal.
- It is faster and considerably cheaper.
- Re-arguing the merits rarely succeeds.
- It may or may not suspend the appeal period.
- That question must be answered before applying.
Questions readers ask
What grounds justify asking a decision-maker to reconsider?
Narrow ones: a clear error on the face of the decision, a material fact that was before the decision-maker and plainly not taken into account, an argument that was made and not addressed at all, a change of circumstances undermining the basis of the decision, or a procedural irregularity. What does not work is disagreement with the outcome or the reasoning, which is what an appeal exists for.
Does a reconsideration application stop the appeal period running?
In some systems yes, and in many no, which makes it the first question to answer before applying. An applicant who assumes suspension and waits for a decision can find the appeal period has expired in the meantime, with no relief available. Where the position is uncertain or where the answer is no, filing a protective notice of appeal alongside the application removes the risk at very little cost.
Is reconsideration worth attempting?
Where the ground genuinely falls into one of the recognized categories, yes: it is faster, considerably cheaper and less disruptive to the underlying matter than an appeal. Where the real complaint is that the decision was wrong on its merits, it is not, and the application will simply consume time the appeal route needed. Being honest about which situation applies is the whole of the decision.
Sources
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 59(e), Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgmentlaw.cornell.edu
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 60(a), Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakeslaw.cornell.edu
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 60(b), Relief from a Judgment or Orderlaw.cornell.edu
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 54(b), Revision of Orderslaw.cornell.edu
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure — Rule 4(a)(4), Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeallaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Motion for Reconsiderationlaw.cornell.edu
Urban Justice Docket is a publication, not a law firm. This article states general rules and cites its sources; it is not advice about any particular case, and the law differs by state and changes over time.
More in The Window to Appeal
The Event That Opens the Appeal Window
Appeal windows run from a trigger defined by the applicable rule: the pronouncement of a decision, its entry, its service, or occasionally its receipt. Different systems and different decision types use different triggers, and the difference is frequently decisive because appeal periods are short and rarely extendable. Establishing the trigger is the first step in calculating anything.
Appealing Part of a Decision
An appellant can usually challenge part of a decision rather than the whole of it, and the notice defines that scope. A narrow scope reduces cost and focuses the argument, and it also forecloses points that turn out to matter. Because widening the scope after the period has expired is difficult, the definition deserves more thought than it usually receives.
Appealing Once the Window Has Closed
Where an appeal period has expired, the first question is whether any relief exists. Many appeal windows are absolute. Where relief is available, it depends on how quickly the applicant moved, why the period was missed, whether the respondent has relied on finality, and whether the appeal has merit. The notice should be filed alongside the application.