The O. M. Arnold

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Rule '56(f) has been interpreted as requiring that the party moving for Rule 56(f)-relief indicate “why it has not previously discovered the information”
• explaining that missing a deadline is inexcusable neglect that does not warrant relief under Rule 60(b)
• explaining that the party making a request pursuant to Rule 56(d) must specify “what material facts [it] hope[s] to uncover, and why [it] has not previously discovered the information.”
• declining to address the issue whether an affidavit is necessary because the plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of the rule
• affirming finding of inexcusable neglect for failure to respond to motion for summary judgment where parties neglected procedural rules and failed to inform court of any requested extensions informally agreed upon by the parties
• finding neglect inexcusable where failure to file response to motion for summary judgment was due to informal agreement with defense counsel to permit a late filing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).