Andrew Hollis v. U.S. Department of the Army

How courts have described this case

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

• “no prejudice can result from ... nonobservance [of Rule 12(b)’s notice-and-opportunity requirement] where it is clear that the dispositive facts will remain undisputed and unchanged”
• “[N]o useful purpose can be served by [Rule 12(d)’s notice-and opportunity requirement’s] application where it is clear that the dispositive facts will remain undisputed and unchanged.”
• “[N]o useful purpose can be served by [Rule 12(d)’s notice-and opportunity requirement’s] application where it is clear that the dispositive facts will remain undisputed and unchanged.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).