Phillips v. Venker

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 plaintiff was deprived of due process when the court heard argument and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant during a conference call to discuss a scheduling matter
• concluding that under Rule 2-311(f) a decision by a lower court on a motion for summary judgment was “dispositive of a claim” and therefore satisfied “one prong of the requirement for a hearing”
• “ ‘ ‘due process’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with fixed content unrelated to time, place, and circumstances’ ... (citation omitted
• denial of due process found when counsel could not effectively participate in hearing because he was not given opportunity to review file, collect thoughts, or otherwise prepare
• “ ‘ ‘due process’ unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with fixed content unrelated to time, place, and circumstances’ ... (citation omitted), Mather it is ‘flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.’ ”
• “Although it would have been preferable for the attorney to employ the time-honored expression of T object,’ thus removing any question about preservation, we believe that given the unusual circumstances of this case, his statements were sufficient to convey his objection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).