Cream of Wheat Corp. v. Moundridge Milling Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that whether the moving party supported its motion with transcript or affidavit for an off-the-record status conference was “of little consequence given this Court’s own clear recollection of the proceeding before it”
• striking claims that exceeded the scope of leave granted by the court under Rule 15
• applying Ohio Rev. Code 2703.14 to service by publication upon an Ohio resident
• striking portions of the plaintiff’s amended complaint “because the new allegations and claim against [the defendant] clearly exceed any permissible bounds of the Court’s prior grant of Plaintiffs’ oral motion to amend his complaint[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).