Commonwealth v. Di Giovanni

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Iowa’s statute requiring early disclosure of expert witnesses did not conflict with Rule 26
• granting a 45-day extension 3 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint did not raise the failure to comply with Section 538.225 as a basis for dismissal. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.
• “[T]he mere fact that [the plaintiffs’] claims arise under the same law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact”.
• “[T]he mere fact that [the plaintiffs’] claims arise under the same law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact”.
• “[T]he mere fact that [the plaintiffs’] claims arise under the same law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact”.
• “[T]he mere fact that [the plaintiffs’] claims arise under the same law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).