Armstrong v. AMERICAN PALLET LEASING INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that inclusion of a new argument in a reply is contrary to N.D. Iowa L.R. 7.1(g) and practice in this circuit, citing cases
• noting that inclusion of a new argument in a reply is contrary to N.D. IA. L.R. 7.1(g) and practice in this circuit, citing cases
• noting that inclusion of a new argument in a reply is contrary to N.D. IA. L.R. 7.1(g) and practice in this circuit, citing cases
• noting that inclusion of a new argument in a reply is contrary to N.D. IA. L.R. 7.1(g) and practice in this circuit, citing cases
• dismissing a fraudulent representation claim where the plaintiffs failed to identify “who made the representation and to whom it was made, or when”
• rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act imposed a duty of care on the defendant-bank

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).