AVDIC, REFIK v. AVDIC, ZINETA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Washington law applied in an environmental cleanup because the coverage amounts for a single site in Washington “dwarfed” the coverage amounts for the 12 sites located in Virginia.
• stating that a finding of bad faith 10 or willfulness is necessary when the exclusion of evidence would be “dispositive” of a 11 claim
• explaining that “the actual time of repair has some bearing” but noting that no authority states “that the applicable repair period should be measured by ‘actual replacement time’ even where the actual time to repair is unreasonable”
• explaining that a district court has wide latitude regarding discovery sanctions
• setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has wide latitude regarding discovery sanctions
• rejecting argument that court should consider “a jurisdiction’s relationship with a contract, rather than a specific property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).