Miles v. Robinson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a party may be deprived of access to information relevant to their claim until discovery is completed because the relevant evidence is in the possession of the defendant
• noting courts’ discretion to deny amendment “in light of the pertinent balance of equitable considerations” (citation omitted)
• applying “federal common law and general contract-law principles” to observe that “an inquiring court must avoid tunnel vision” and “consider contractual provisions within the context of the contract as a whole” “instead of focusing myopically on individual words”
• applying “federal common law and general contract-law principles” to observe that “an inquiring court must avoid tunnel vision” and “consider contractual provisions within the context of the contract as a whole” “instead of focusing myopically on individual words”
• applying “federal common law and general contract-law principles” to observe that “an inquiring court must avoid tunnel vision” and “consider contractual provisions within the context of the contract as a whole” “instead of focusing myopically on individual words”
• applying “federal common law and general contract-law principles” to observe that “an inquiring court must avoid tunnel vision” and “consider contractual provisions within the context of the contract as a whole” “instead of focusing myopically on individual words”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).