Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• choosing not to view the district court’s comments at oral argument as notice of intent to enter summary judgment
• requiring the district court to provide party with ten days notice and opportunity to respond before summary judgment is entered sua sponte
• “Under [28 U.S.C. § 1738], a federal court must refer to the preclusion law of the state in which judgment was rendered.”
• “Generally, we deem abandoned those issues not presented and argued in an appellant’s initial brief . . . .”
• “Although a defendant may not be both a person and an enterprise, a defendant may be both a person and a part of an enterprise.”
• “[T]he preclusive effect of judgments arising from suits filed before [January 1, 1991], such as the present matter, is determined by the law in effect prior to 1991.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).