State of NY v. Solvent Chemical Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing Schweitzer on the grounds that “the court discussed the Rail Act, but only with respect to how the Rail Act failed to support Reading’s ‘dual reorganization’ argument”
• “[a] Rule 60 motion … generally must be addressed to the 7 court that issued the challenged judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).