Eric Clausen v. Sea-3, Inc., Storage Tank Development Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court, sitting in New Hampshire, is entitled to enforce Local Rule 11(b) by refusing to accept a noncompliant motion for filing
• holding that it was not plain error for district court to admit evidence of remedial measure taken three years after accident to prove defendant's control over area in which accident occurred
• holding that a judgment must generally resolve third-party claims to be final and noting that a judgment that does not resolve all third-party claims \d[oes] not dispose of all the claims in the case\ (emphasis added)
• noting that a decision that was appropriate for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) was “close enough to a decision that would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgement.” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)
• affirming district court's refusal to accept motion for failure to comply with local rules
• “[The district court] had to satisfy itself and certify that the decision was, in effect, appropriate for immediate appeal, pursuant to [Rule 54(b) ], notwithstanding its failure to resolve all claims made in the lawsuit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).