Dixon v. Rutgers

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting University’s argument that Evidence Rule 34 protects peer-review materials used for tenure evaluations
• “We perceive no merit in Rutgers’ contention that differences in job responsibilities and disciplines between these three academicians vitiate the relevancy of the comparison.”
• \We perceive no merit in Rutgers' contention that differences in job responsibilities and disciplines between these three academicians vitiate the relevancy of the comparison.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).