Hancor, Inc. v. R & R Engineering Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[s]ome courts have questioned the continued validity of § 9’s service requirement”
• addressing the plaintiff’s evidence showing that the defendant knew of his disability at the motion for summary judgment stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).