RIGBY, DALE R., PEOPLE v

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 Board had abused its discretion where it “pars[ed] [the party’s] arguments on reply with too fine of a filter” and noting that the reply “expands the same argument made in [the] Petition”
• finding no waiver where party “merely expand[ed] on a previously ar- gued rationale” rather than an entirely new rationale
• vacating Board refusal to con- sider reply arguments that “expressly follow[ed] from . . . contentions raised in the Petition”
• “The Board’s error was parsing Ericsson’s argu- ments on reply with too fine of a filter.”
• “The Board’s error was parsing Ericsson’s argu- ments on reply with too fine of a filter.”
• consid- ering whether the Board abused its discretion in the context of § 42.23(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).