Gropen v. Super. Ct.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to apply any presumption or rule of construction to the question whether the proviso applies to TSOs
• “The problem with the government’s argu- ment is that it reprises a tactic the Supreme Court [in Millbrook] has already rejected: ‘read[ing] into the text additional limitations de- signed to narrow the scope of the law enforcement proviso’”
• “[A] party wishing to avail itself of its right to de novo review must be sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[A] party wishing to avail itself of its right to de novo review must be sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[A] party wishing to avail itself of its right to de novo review must be sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[A] party need not frame its arguments anew when it objects.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).