Hoff v. Kempton

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,” doing no more than establishing the law of the case
• applying the federal test articulated in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355-56, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)
• expressing our understanding that in rem jurisdiction is commonly grouped \under the rubric of `personal jurisdiction'\
• stating generally “absent * * * specific pronouncements by the overruling court that its decision is to be applied prospectively only, the decision is to be given retroactive effect” (citations omitted)
• summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view doing no more than establishing the law of the case
• summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).