D. C. Electronics, Inc. v. Nartron Corp. And Norma Rautiola

How courts have described this case

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

• opining that the drafters of Rule 41(a) were “[u]ndoubtedly conscious of the incalculable paths which litigation may follow” and are presumed to have “employed precise language”
• describing Summers’s 19 suggestion as aiming “to prevent [the plaintiff] from dismissing and leaving the defendant with a 20 big job done in preparation for a motion on the merits and not having had a hearing on it” 21 (comments of William D. Mitchell, Chairman)
• “[A] plaintiff's ability to harass . . . can be cut off completely by . . . [serving] an answer . . . .”
• “[T]he power of change rests with the rule making body, not the courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).