Horan v. R. S. Cook & Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• where the court found that the mere assertion that counsel was preoccupied with establishing his own law practice would not support opening default judgment
• counsel's explanation that he thought extension was general because he habitually obtained general, \open ended\ extensions, rejected as unreasonable because length of extension was stated on its face
• counsel’s explanation that he thought extension was general because he habitually obtained general, “open ended” extensions, rejected as unreasonable because length of extension was stated on its face
• no snap judgment where judgment was entered twenty-seven days after the extension expired
• no snap judgment where judgment was entered twenty-seven days after the extension expired

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).