Brutoco Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under Rule 23(h), class members must be given a 15 full and fair opportunity to examine and object to attorneys’ fees motion
• explaining that in light of North Carolina law, the state court's \denial\ did not necessarily indicate the state court considered the merits
• holding that “[u]nlawful detention” by immigration 15 officials constituted “irreparable harm”
• explaining that in light of North Carolina law, the state court’s “denial” did not necessarily indicate the state court considered the merits
• noting that habeas petitions should be dismissed if the error was harmless
• noting “California's common-law right of publicity 15 protects an individual's name and likeness from appropriation for . . . commercial . . . 16 purposes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).