I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. v. Polkase Mfg. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that failing to impeach a witness with cumulative evidence does not prejudice the petitioner
• explaining that “courts generally will not address new arguments raised in a reply brief because it would be unfair”
• explaining that “courts generally will not address new arguments raised in a reply brief because it would be unfair to the [other party]”
• explaining that “courts generally will not address new arguments raised in a reply brief because it would be unfair to the [other party] and would risk an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues raised”
• treating Rule 60(b) motion raising new claims as suc- cessive § 2254 application
• refusing to indulge in a \grading of the quality of counsel's cross-examination\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).