Edwards v. Newjersey

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 district court “did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery because [the plaintiff] did not meet his burden of showing that the requested discovery is likely to produce the facts needed to establish jurisdiction”
• noting that a party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery if the requested discovery is “not likely to produce the facts needed” to establish jurisdiction
• noting that jurisdictional discovery is inappropriate where requesting party has not shown how the requested discovery would produce facts necessary to withstand dismissal
• engaging in a “preliminary review of the IRS’s contention that it issued the challenged summons in aid of collection”
• citing, inter alia, Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009) (“A party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery if the record shows that the requested discovery is not likely to produce the facts needed to” confer jurisdiction. (brackets omitted))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).