Charles I. Hudson & Co. v. Wood

How courts have described this case

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

• assessing alleged violation of Rule 4.2 and citing United States v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 734 F.3d 154, 167 (2d Cir. 2013) & McCallum, 149 F.R.D. at 113
• “The court need not, and will not, devise arguments or scour case law to support a party’s legal conclusions.”
• “The court need not, and will not, devise arguments or scour case law to support a party’s legal conclusions.”
• “[I]n determining whether persons are similarly situated for equal protection purposes, a court must examine all relevant factors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).