Santana Marrero, Alexander v. Hospital Español Auxilio Mutuo

How courts have described this case

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

• Wood “implicitly assumes” that inadmissible evidence could be “so promising a lead to strong exculpatory evidence that there could be no justification for withholding it”
• \[W]e think it plain that evidence itself inadmissible could be so promising a lead to strong exculpatory evidence that there could be no justification for withholding it.\
• “[W]e think it plain that evidence itself inadmissible could be so promising a lead to strong exculpatory evidence that there could be no justification for withholding it.” (Emphasis omitted.)
• “Section 501 borrows its substantive standards from the Americans with 12 Disabilities Act (ADA).” (citing 29 U.S.C. § 791(g)); see also Coons v. Sec’y of the U.S. Dept. of 13 Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004
• “Amtrak sought an outright dismissal under 12(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).