Johnson v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “claim for indemnification under the agreement is barred as a matter of law because of [the] violation of the 60-day notice provision of . . . . the [contract].”
• noting that federal courts adjudicating issues of state law “rule upon state law as it exists and do not surmise or suggest its expansion”
• noting that federal courts adjudicating issues of state law “rule upon state law as it exists and do not surmise or suggest its expansion”
• “[F]ederal courts sitting in diversity rule upon state law as it exists and do not surmise or suggest its expansion.”
• “[T]he federal courts sitting in diversity rule upon state law as it exists and do not surmise or suggest its expansion.”
• “[T]he federal courts sitting in diversity rule upon state law as it exists and do not surmise or suggest its expansion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).