Teresa Barney and Randy Barney, Bonita Waldron, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Intervenor-Appellant v. Holzer Clinic, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an award of fees under section 1927 was not warranted where the \central issue was one of first impression\
• holding that the government could not compel a hospital to participate in Medicaid
• affirming the district court, after it certified a class and then dismissed the class’s claims, but modifying sua sponte the trial court’s class definition
• “The district court’s duty to assay whether the named plaintiffs are adequately representing the broader class does not end with the initial certification....”
• “We need not address either of these propositions, however, because plaintiffs are not ‘applicants' under the ECO[ Act] and therefore cannot invoke the Act's protections.”
• parenthetically summarizing Brothers’ holding as “applying ECOA to consumer leases, despite evidence that Congress had rejected such an application”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).