C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Joseph Banks Admr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding non-movant’s “arguments in briefs [we]re not competent evidence” and therefore could not serve as the evidentiary basis for an unduly burdensome objection to a subpoena
• analyzing in detail the specific information requested in various subpoenas, whether sufficient documents were produced in response to requests, and whether each of the outstanding 27 requests were relevant
• “Because the question of its 16 jurisdiction to hear the case is a pure question of law, the court concludes that allowing 17 [declaratory relief plaintiff] to amend its complaint would be futile, it therefore dismisses the 18 action with prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).