Cockburn v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, although the Rule 15(d) and Rule 15(a)(2) standards overlap, they are not identical, but not proceeding to analyze “the precise differences between the two standards” because the case fell within the overlap
• rejecting supplementation seeking to challenge “different type[s] of agency action” that were “promulgated based on a different administrative record, pursuant to different authority”
• “The plain text of Rule 15(d) . . . permits a court to grant leave to supplement, but imposes no standard requiring a court to do so.”
• “The plain text of Rule 15(d) . . . permits a court to grant leave to supplement, but imposes no standard requiring a court to do so.”
• “To the extent that the plaintiffs suffer any harm from the modified compliance deadlines going forward, the harmful effects will stem from the ELG Rule Amendment, not the withdrawn Stay.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).