Rahman v. Mayo Clinic

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[the plaintiff] failed to allege any facts that demonstrate that the clinic acted dishonestly, maliciously, fraudulently, or unconscionably”
• “Whether actions constitute good faith [under the UAGA] is a question of law, properly resolved on summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).