Eli M. Spark v. The Catholic University of America

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that granting the plaintiff’s motion for oral argument would not have “produced any further evidence to enable the District Court to find federal jurisdiction”
• finding that granting the plaintiff's motion for oral argument would not have \produced any further evidence to enable the District Court to find federal jurisdiction\
• district court may \dispense with oral arguments in appro- priate circumstances in the interest of judicial economy\
• “The fact the Federal Government contributes funds to the University, by itself, is insufficient to show the exercise of influence on University decision-making or the encouragement of specific policies.”
• “[D]ue process does not include the right to oral argument on a motion[.]”
• “[D]ue process does not include the right to oral argument on a motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).