Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Turley

How courts have described this case

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

• denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint where the proposed pleading failed to state any actionable claims against the newly identified defendants
• dismissing the MTSA claim because the plaintiff “failed to allege that he received unsolicited calls on any number that, at the time of the calls, was both registered to an individual and on the state or federal do-not-call list.”
• denying leave to amend after concluding that amendment was futile

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).