Anolick v. Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he presence of cross-motions ‘does not act per se as a concession that there is an absence of factual issues.’”
• “[T]he presence of cross-motions ‘does not act per se as a concession that there is an absence of factual issues.’”
• “[T]he presence of cross-motions ‘does not act per se as a concession that there is an absence of factual issues.’”
• “[T]he presence of cross-motions ‘does not act per se as a concession that there is an absence of factual issues.’” (quoting United Vanguard Fund, Inc., 693 A.2d at 1079
• “[T]he presence of cross-motions ‘does not act per se as a concession that there is an absence of factual issues.’” (quoting United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. TakeCare, Inc., 693 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Del. 1997))
• “[T]he presence of cross-motions ‘does not act per se as a concession that there is an absence of factual issues.’” (quoting United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. TakeCare, Inc., 693 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Del. 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).