Joseph F. O’TOOLE & Marjorie C. O’Toole, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. ARLINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \[t]he paucity of appellants' presentation of evidence justifie[d] the district court's conclusion that they had not met [their] burden.\
• holding that \[t]he paucity of appellants' presentation of evidence justifie[d] the district court's conclusion that they had not met [their] burden.\
• finding no abuse of discretion, as \the court was under no obligation to require an evidentiary hearing . . . [but] has the right to determine the procedures it will employ to decide a jurisdiction- al issue\
• finding no abuse of discretion, as \the court was under no obligation to require an evidentiary hearing . . . [but] has the right to determine the procedures it will employ to decide a jurisdiction- al issue\
• “In the absence of [the discretionary, advisory activities described by the statute], it would be unfair to impose on appellee the responsibilities and liabilities created by the statute for fiduciaries.”
• “the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to support allegations of jurisdiction with competent proof when the allegations are challenged by the defendant.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).