Messina, Karyn v. Krakower, Daniel

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 Rule 28(a)(1) filing provided adequate notice of the intent to appeal from an undesignated order
• stating that Rule 59(e) motions may not simply “rely on the same arguments ... originally made” by the moving party
• stating that, for the judicial privilege to apply in a defamation ease, “litigation [must be] truly under serious consideration” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that Rule 59(e) motions may not simply “rely on the same arguments ... originally made” by the moving party
• recognizing no privilege when statement is “published to persons not having an interest [in] or connection to the litigation”
• holding no abuse of discretion to deny Rule 56(d) request in defamation case where affidavit presented no reason to believe that defamatory letter was disseminated to any third person

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).