Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant failed to show acute Fifth Amendment dilemma where no criminal charges had been brought and defendant did not inform the court of any “facts that might tend to suggest that an indictment was more than a remote possibility”
• noting that “a defendant has no constitutional right to a stay simply because a parallel criminal proceeding is in the works”
• noting that “the foot-dragging that already had occurred gave the [district] court good reason for skepticism about the requested stay”
• explaining that an expert qualified by knowledge or experience “need not have had first-hand dealings with the precise type of event that is at issue” in a case
• concluding that the district court did not err in declining to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law along with its denial of a motion to stay; “a reviewing court ordinarily may assume that the judge gave careful consideration to the motion and weighed the appropriate factors”
• describing a district court’s “discretionary power to stay civil proceedings in deference to parallel criminal proceedings” after engaging in a nuanced balance of certain factors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).