Suzanne Cardali v. Michael Cardali

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 held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for [the court’s] consideration”
• comparing delay for new defendants to delay related “to motions made by a co-defendant”
• \[A]n argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for[] consideration.\ (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• “We require petitioners and appellants to raise all of their arguments in the opening brief, and have repeatedly held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for our consideration.”
• “We require petitioners and appellants to raise all of their arguments in the opening brief, and have repeatedly held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for our consideration.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).