Arnold D. Berkeley v. Home Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that then-Rule 56(f) “is not properly invoked to relieve counsel’s lack of diligence”
• noting that another circuit has held that “Rule 56(f) motions should be granted ‘almost as a matter of course unless the non- moving party has not diligently pursued discovery of the evidence’”
• noting that another circuit has held that “Rule 56(f) motions should be granted ‘almost as a matter of course unless the non- moving party has not diligently pursued discovery of the evidence’”
• “Notwithstanding the usual generous approach toward granting Rule 56(f) motions, the rule is not properly invoked to relieve counsel’s lack of diligence.”
• “Notwithstanding the usual generous approach toward granting Rule 56[ (d) ] motions, the rule is not properly invoked to relieve counsel’s lack of diligence”
• affirming district court’s reduction of fees by 50% “in light of post- hoc recollections two years after the fact and methodologically flawed estimates”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).