Ammermann v. Tompkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reversing bankruptcy court and holding that “the relevant inquiry turns on a plaintiffs ability to discover the claim, and here, [d]ebtors are the only plaintiffs with a breach of fiduciary duty claim”
• “[I]f Casita was a member of Investors with knowledge of the misconduct in 2005, then it appears that judgment against Eugenia in regards to Investors would be appropriate because the statute of limitations would not have been tolled”
• “[I]f Casita was a member of Investors with knowledge of the misconduct in 2005, then it appears that judgment against Eugenia in regards to Investors would be appropriate because the statute of limitations would not have been tolled”
• “This is an extremely limited holding.”
• “This is an extremely limited holding.”
• “This is an extremely limited holding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).