In Re Armstrong

How courts have described this case

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

• “Since the general policy under Rule 41(a) is to permit dismissal, withdrawal of a proof of claim should in most instances be permitted unless the result is legal harm to another party in interest.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Oteria Moses v. Cashcall, Inc.
  Fourth Circuit· 2015-03-16· cited 38×
• EXDS, Inc. v. RK Electric, Inc. (In Re EXDS, Inc.)
  D. Delaware· 2003-10-31· cited 13×
• In Re Kaiser Group Intern., Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2002-01-09· cited 6×
• Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. Covanta Union, Inc. (In Re Ogden New York Services, Inc.)
  S.D. New York· 2004-08-05· cited 5×
• In re Kaiser Group International, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2002-01-09· cited 2×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Langenkamp v. Culp
  Supreme Court· 1991-01-10· cited 575×
• Jeno F. Paulucci and Lois Paulucci v. City of Duluth and Lake Superior Paper Industries
  Eighth Circuit· 1987-08-20· cited 123×
• In Re 20/20 Sport, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1996-10-01· cited 50×
• Glen HOFFMANN, Appellee, v. ALSIDE, INC., and United States Steel Corporation, Appellants
  Eighth Circuit· 1979-04-27· cited 31×
• Kelso v. MacLaren
  Eighth Circuit· 1941-10-16· cited 26×
• In Re County of Orange
  C.D. California· 1996-11-27· cited 9×