Dluhos v. Strasberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) requires the federal court to approach the issues raised in an action brought under that provision de novo rather than to apply the deferential review appropriate to actions governed by the Federal Arbitration Act
• stating that even an erroneous interpretation of the law is insufficient basis for vacatur
• stating that even an erroneous interpretation of the law is insufficient basis for vacatur
• “apply[ing] the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name,” on a motion to dismiss
• “apply[ing] the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name,” on a motion to dismiss
• “apply[ing] the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name,” on a motion to dismiss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).