Hill v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the district court’s failure to address [a party’s] arguments may be properly construed as an implicit denial of those arguments”
• holding that the district court's failure to address Rule 72(a) objections could be properly construed as an implicit denial of those arguments
• holding that district court retains discretion to appoint counsel for indigent prisoners in civil cases and that burden is on applicant to show that appointment is warranted
• concluding that “the Colorado review statute is applicable to professional negligence claims brought against the United States under the FTCA” and dismissing the plaintiff’s FTCA claim for failure to file a certificate of review
• holding that United States was entitled to assert state-law statutory defense available to similarly situated private parties because to hold otherwise would be to “render it liable … where private parties would not be”
• noting that the Colorado \certificate of review requirement applies whether or not the plaintiff is represented by counsel\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).