L. E. Waterman Co. v. McCutcheon

How courts have described this case

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

• criticizing portfolio monitoring arrangement when plaintiff had exclusive portfolio monitoring agreement with one law firm and plaintiff failed to attend multiple proceedings and a demonstrated no knowledge of the allegations in the complaint
• “[Plaintiffs] will face a rigorous analysis by the federal courts, will not be afforded favorable presumptions from the pleadings or otherwise and must be prepared to prove with facts . . . their compliance with the requirements of Rule 23.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).