Coleman v. Dydula

How courts have described this case

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

• Rule 26 does not contemplate shifting burden of obtaining information to discovering party
• Rule 26 does not contemplate shifting burden of obtaining information to discovering party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2005-07-22· cited 60×
• Carlson v. Ferris
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2002-12-02· cited 13×
• Jennings v. Thompson
  District of Columbia· 2011-04-18· cited 2×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Van Nguyen v. IBP, Inc.
  D. Kansas· 1995-07-27· cited 71×
• Hilt v. SFC Inc.
  D. Kansas· 1997-01-17· cited 57×
• Coleman v. Dydula
  W.D. New York· 1997-06-27· cited 6×
• Majewski v. Southland Corp.
  D. Kansas· 1996-12-19· cited 3×