Mayfield v. National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, 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 allegations that may be stated generally under Rule 9(b) “must still be alleged in accordance with Rule 8.”
• recognizing that “[a] party’s failure to raise or discuss an issue in [its] brief is to be deemed an abandonment of that issue”
• recognizing that Rule 59(e) relief may be granted only in limited circumstances, including “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice,” and that “[i]t is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied sparingly” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that Rule 59(e) relief may be granted only in limited circumstances, including “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice,” and that “[i]t is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied sparingly” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that Rule 59(e) relief may be granted only in limited circumstances, including “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice,” and that “[i]t is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied sparingly” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• observing that “the usual standards of notice pleading apply in defamation cases” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).