Quinn v. Anvil Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that it is an abuse of discretion to base an injunction on an erroneous legal standard
• recognizing that contemporaneous ownership requirement in Rule 23.1 is procedural
• explaining that, 15 with respect to a Washington corporation, “to the extent that [a shareholder] is personally 16 aggrieved [by corporate fraud], his recourse would be to bring a direct action against [the 17 corporation]”
• stating we review de novo whether a plaintiff has Rule 23.1 standing
• “We review district court rulings on discovery matters for abuse of discretion.”
• “We review district court rulings on discovery matters for abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).