Downing v. McKillop, Walker & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the objectors’ “omission of documents . . . critical to [the magistrate judge’s] assessment” lacked any “compelling justification”
• holding that judicial findings of fact have no evidentiary value, but may be used under the doctrine of collateral estoppel to award damages in the amount equal to the restitution award in related RICO criminal case
• reviewing a report and recommendation for clear error where the “objections are a rehash of arguments from their initial motion’
• “When a party . . . simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court will review the R&R strictly for clear error.” (citation modified)
• “When a party makes only conclusory or general objections, . . . the Court will review the [R & R] strictly for clear error.”
• “When a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court will review the report and recommendation strictly for clear error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).