Capella University, Inc. v. EXECUTIVE RISK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment generally does not amount to deliberate indifference
• remanding for award of mandatory prejudgment and postjudgment interest, even though plaintiff did not move for interest under Rule 59(e) and instead raised the issue for the first time in a timely appeal
• “position statements submitted by the charged party may all be admissible as relevant evidence in subsequent litigation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).