Williams v. Savage

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 “standard of review for interlocutory decisions differs from the standards applied to final judgments”
• noting that the “standard of review for interlocutory decisions differs from the standards applied to final judgments”
• finding that, where plaintiffs “demonstrate[d] that they knew of their right to respond to the defendants’ arguments” by filing an opposition to a dispositive motion but “chose not to” address those arguments, “[i]t is a concession of the point”
• finding that, where plain- tiffs “demonstrate[d] that they knew of their right to respond to the defendants’ arguments” by filing an opposition to a dispositive motion but “chose not to” address those arguments, “[i]t is a concession of the point”
• denying motion where “plaintiffs possessed the relevant information . . . when they filed their original complaint”
• approving sua sponte dismissal “if it is patently obvious that dismissal is appropriate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).