Jewel Tea Co. v. Kraus

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting defendants’ reading of Rule 30(e), which would strike all but typographical errors, as too narrow
• stating there is a “wealth of [] cases in which courts have interpreted Rule 30(e) to permit all changes as long as the procedural requirements are satisfied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).