Woods v. Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• vacating grant of summary judgment, finding that trial court erred in striking as untimely plaintiff’s opposing affidavit, filed three days prior to hearing
• noting that “legal argument . . . requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts,” and pointing out that an assertion of error followed by a legal citation is not sufficient
• vacating grant of summary judgment, finding that trial court erred in striking as untimely plaintiff’s opposing affidavit, filed three days prior to hearing
• exercising discretion to review enumerations of error on the merits even though none of the enumerated errors relating to trial court's grant of summary judgment were \supported by citations to the record or argument\
• exercising discretion to review enumerations of error on the merits even though none of the enumerated errors relating to trial court’s grant of summary judgment were “supported by citations to the record or argument”
• “[L]egal argument . . . requires, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).