Robertson v. American Airlines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly upheld district court rulings that hold parties to strict compliance with [the predecessor of LCvR 7(h)(1) ]\ and collecting cases
• noting that “the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly upheld district court rulings that hold parties to strict compliance with [the predecessor of LCvR 7(h)(1)]” and collecting cases
• observing that an inadequate Rule 7(h) statement leaves the other side without “an opportunity fairly to contest the . . . case” against it (quoting Burke v. Gould, 286 F.3d 513, 519 (D.C. Cir. 2002))
• striking movant’s statement of facts for “liberally mixfing] facts with argument” which “does nothing to assist the court in isolating the material facts, distinguishing disputed from undisputed facts, and identifying the pertinent parts of the record”
• faulting a statement of undisputed material facts which “liberally mixes facts with argument” and “does nothing to assist the court in isolating the material facts, distinguishing disputed from undisputed facts, and identifying the pertinent parts of the record”
• “Merely incorporating entire affidavits and other materials without reference to the particular facts cited therein is not sufficient.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).