Valley Forge Insurance v. Health Care Management Partners, 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 Rule 56(d) requires a declaration that (1) identifies the probable facts not available, (2) states why those facts cannot be currently presented, (3) specifies the steps taken to obtain those facts, and (4
• holding that an affidavit did not meet Rule 56(d)’s requirements when the affiant listed additional materials sought by the defendants, but made “no attempt to explain” why the defendants had lacked the evidence or how they had attempted to obtain it
• noting that an anticipatory declaratory action “is permissible if it concerns issues that are ’independent of and separable from those in the underlying action’” (quoting Constitution Assocs., 930 P.2d at 561)
• explaining that we answer “only the questions we must, not those we can”
• noting that a conclusory and self-serving affidavit does not create a factual dispute
• examining whether information sought by subpoena was covered by the attorney-client privilege, which would “provide legitimate grounds for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).