Stanton v. Sutton

How courts have described this case

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

• prior to promulgation of the compulsory counter- claim rule, the court of appeals held: “There is no basis for suggesting that use of the word ‘may’ in 37 C.F.R. 2.106(b) was intended to have any other meaning than it has in Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b
• prior to promulgation of the compulsory counter- claim rule, the court of appeals held: “There is no basis for suggesting that use of the word ‘may’ in 37 C.F.R. 2.106(b) was intended to have any other meaning than it has in Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b
• prior to promulgation of the compulsory counter- claim rule, the court of appeals held: “There is no basis for suggesting that use of the word ‘may’ in 37 C.F.R. 2.106(b) was intended to have any other meaning than it has in Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).