Echo Acceptance Corp. v. Household Retail Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[i]n general, the interpretation of a contract is a question of law”
• noting that “one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business”
• holding district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided a motion under Rule 59(e) without granting an evidentiary hearing
• stating that the rule of completeness is triggered when it is “necessary to provide con text or completeness”
• noting that “one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business.”
• stating that the rule of completeness is triggered when it is “necessary to provide context or completeness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).