Comeau v. Rupp

How courts have described this case

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

• stating “a magistrate is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive discovery disputes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• McCoo v. Denny's Inc.
  D. Kansas· 2000-04-18· cited 81×
• Ariza v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.
  D. Colorado· 1996-05-14· cited 45×
• Comeau v. Rupp
  D. Kansas· 1992-10-29· cited 39×
• Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO
  D. New Mexico· 1998-11-02· cited 9×
• In Re JMP Newcor International, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 1997-02-05· cited 3×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
  Supreme Court· 1948-03-08· cited 9,383×
• Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson
  Supreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 1,199×
• Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow Industries
  Tenth Circuit· 1988-05-31· cited 591×
• Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc.
  Tenth Circuit· 1990-10-30· cited 314×
• Detection Systems, Inc. v. Pittway Corp.
  W.D. New York· 1982-11-08· cited 58×
• Smith v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
  D. Kansas· 1989-02-23· cited 55×
• Byers v. Burleson
  District of Columbia· 1983-12-22· cited 41×
• Brueck v. Krings
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1982-01-15· cited 32×
• Comeau v. Rupp
  D. Kansas· 1991-04-15· cited 21×
• Eoppolo v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1985-07-16· cited 20×
• American Standard Inc. v. Bendix Corp.
  W.D. Missouri· 1978-12-14· cited 19×