McGrew v. Cato's Executors

How courts have described this case

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

• denying motion under Rule 56(f) due to lack of “a sufficient basis to pursue additional discovery,” where plaintiffs alleged factual basis was merely “within the realm of possibility!’
• interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1498(c) analogously to identical language in the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), and explaining that “U.S. courts do not possess jurisdiction under the FTCA [and therefore under § 1498(c
• “[T]he Department of Justice has not issued regulations to define the term ‘claim’ or to direct the filing of a claimant’s administrative copyright infringement claim to any specific office.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).