United States v. WADAA

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant-sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs complaint attributed no specific acts to the sheriff
• concluding that defendant-sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff’s complaint attributed no specific acts to the sheriff
• holding that the statement “[c]ounsel believes evidence will demonstrate the Plaintiff was arrested for no other reason than dragging the American Flag” did not meet the requirements of Rule 56
• holding bankruptcy order denying mandatory abstention is a final, reviewable order under collateral order exception
• rejecting the concurrence’s contention that the defendant’s Younger-abstention claim should be heard on interlocutory appeal in the interest of judicial economy
• saying “[b]are allegations or vague assertions of the need for discovery are not enough” and that a party moving for Rule 56(d) relief must offer with “some precision . . . exactly how he expects [the requested] materials would help him in opposing summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).