Laserfiche WebLink
rale 140 of the Minnesota Rules of r.ivil Appellate Procedure <br />provides for petitioning the supreme court for a rehearing, the <br />judgment of an appellate court has a strong presumption in its <br />favor and will not be reconsidered aosent serious error. <br />Wardemann v. dlelm, 260 Minn. 455, 110 N.W.2d 150, 151-52 (1961); <br />State V. AuaMS, 251 Minn. 521, S9 14.4.20 ubl, 679-b0 (1957). <br />Appellate courts will not grant a rehearing merely to allow a <br />losing party a secdnu opportunity to aovanee arguments that have <br />alreaui been considered by the court in arriving at its decision. <br />Aoaws, 251 runn. 521, 09 N.N.20 at 679-oU. Moreover, the cdart <br />will grant a reargument only when it has overlooked some material <br />fact or controlling prynciple of law. durdemann, 260 Minn. 455, <br />110 N.W.2d at 151-52. Clearly, the rationale behind the limited <br />grounds roc rehearing is to introduce finality into the appellate <br />process which could otherwise be prolonged almost indefinitely. <br />In this matter, Welsh contends tnat this court has <br />mi:,conceived and misapplied the relevant case law regarding the <br />awarw or attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. i 196b and has failed to <br />consider the degree to which his action advanced the punlic <br />interest. while Welsn's displeasure with the court's adverse <br />ruling on attorney fees is understandaole, given the result, it is <br />drrrieult to fathom any misapplication or misconception uy the <br />court in light of the following considerations: <br />1. Tne parties briefea the issue fully and extensively <br />with Welsh submitting two briefs on the point. <br />M10 <br />