Central City Foundry & Machine Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• denying summary judgment on punitive damages claim where court concluded that whether officers’ use of force was reasonable was jury question
• denying motion for summary 27 || judgment on punitive damages because “[t]he evidence in this case is sufficient to raise a 28 triable issue as to the state of mind of each officer during the ... incident.”’
• “Defendants request judicial notice of the warrant for Kyles’s arrest . . . Because these court documents are appropriate subjects of judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 24 201(b)(2), the request is GRANTED.”
• “The reason that defendants have waived a timeliness defense here is that the notice sent to Kyles does not comply with section 911.3(a). The notice completely omits the second paragraph of the exemplary language provided in the statute.”
• “Under [California Government Code] section 911.3(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).