John C. Norton v. Sam's Club, Wal-Mart Corp., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[i]ssues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived”
• recognizing that anti-discrimination law “does not make employers liable for doing stupid or even wicked things” but only “for discriminating, for firing people on account of their age” (emphasis in original)
• explaining that anti-discrimination law \does not make [defendants] liable for doing stupid or even wicked things; it makes them liable for discriminating\
• explaining that anti-discrimination law “does not make [defendants] liable for doing stupid or even wicked things; it makes them liable for discriminating”
• holding that “an argument made only in a footnote [i]s inadequately raised for appellate review,” as are arguments made by “merely incorporating by reference an argument presented to the district court” or by “stating an issue without advancing an argument.”
• noting that we do not ordinarily address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).