Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School District

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a series of written correspondence does not constitute a claim within the meaning of the GCA
• holding that a series of written correspondence does not constitute a claim within the meaning of the GCA
• reasoning allowing a series of 12 writings to collectively be considered a claim would make the Government Claims Act 13 “unworkable.”
• “[C]ourts employ the test of substantial compliance rather than strict compliance in 2 deciding whether a plaintiff has met the requirements of the [Government] Claims Act.”
• “[C]ourts employ the test of substantial compliance rather than 25 strict compliance in deciding whether a plaintiff has met the requirements of the [Government] 26 Claims Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).