http://github.com/dylang/node-rsssite-lib/media/favicon.pngWebpage HTML Export plugin for ObsidianSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:55:56 GMTSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:55:38 GMT60pre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/relevance/cerrato-v.-nutribullet,-llc.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Relevance/Cerrato v. Nutribullet, LLC.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:53:46 GMTpre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/proportionality/wagoner-v.-lewis-gale-medical-center,-llc.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Proportionality/Wagoner v. Lewis Gale Medical Center, LLC.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:51:38 GMTFRCP 26(b)(1) Lesson #2: What did the π miss here? What argument could they have made? ∏ didn't PLEAD that Sister's abuse of her was caused by possible anger issues, so there was no basis to allow discovery on it. They could have argued that the sexual assault was about something else—learning about Sister's anger management/therapy history would have given them insight as to the reason for the sexual abuse. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/relevance/favale-v.-roman-catholic-diocese-of-bridgeport.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Relevance/Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:46:00 GMTFavale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport ]]>pre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/relevance/relevance.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Relevance/Relevance.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:41:06 GMTRule 26(b)(1).
Relevance
Proportionality
Privilege ]]>pre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/scope-of-discovery.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Scope of Discovery.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:32:57 GMTAside: Litigation Strategy ]]>pre-trial/discovery/background/background.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Background/Background.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:29:15 GMTpre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/privilege/privilege.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Privilege/Privilege.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:25:31 GMTRule 35. These are very invasive. They force a party to go to an independent doctor and submit themself to a mental/physical examination. The Rule here is weird because it has to be weird; how does it deal with this? This tool requires that you ask the Court for permission to do this. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/compelled-mental-examinations/compelled-physical-mental-examinations.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Compelled Mental Examinations/Compelled Physical-Mental Examinations.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:24:03 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/compelled-mental-examinations/rule-35.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Compelled Mental Examinations/Rule 35.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:22:37 GMTFRCP 26(b)(4)(D). Issues Issue 1: whether Winer qualified as a non-testifying expert, and
Issue 2: if so, whether ∆ could depose Winer under the pretense of FRCP 26(b)(4)(D)(ii)'s "exceptional circumstances" provision.
Rule: FRCP 26(b)(4)(D) Holding Issue 1: Yes. Issue 2: No, in part. Reasoning: Winer was hired to inspect upon arrival in Germany and‚ even after his inspection and report to π (which was protected), ∆ could have sent someone to inspect the ship. Even then ,the ship stayed at port in Germany for weeks, and the crew could have inspected during the voyage. While Winer is protected from deposition, his file he created is not. Judgment: ∆'s motion to compel deposition is denied; π to provide Winer's file to ∆. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/cases-for-topic/chiquita-international-ltd.-v.-m-v-bolero-reefer.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Cases for Topic/Chiquita International Ltd. v. M-V Bolero Reefer.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:20:14 GMTRule 26(b)(4) takes disclosures and expert witness reports into account.
Rule 26(a)(2) sets requirements for the disclosures required regarding expert witnesses. 90 days before trial, the parties must identify experts who may testify Or 30 days before rebuttal testimony Implicitly divides expert witnesses into two distinct groups: Experts who must provide an elaborate written report; and These are experts whose testimony will opine on the lawsuit itself. Experts who don't need to provide an elaborate written report. This category includes "fact witnesses"—those experts who contributed to the design of the thing in controversy. They are usually still required to submit what facts they will be testifying on. Addresses work-product problems surrounding experts
Rule 26(b)(4)(D) protects reports and opinions by witnesses retained in anticipation of litigation who will not testify, with protections similar to Rule 26(b)(3).
Thomson v. The Haskell Co.
Chiquita International Ltd. v. M-V Bolero Reefer. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/required-disclosures/experts.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Required Disclosures/Experts.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:06:27 GMTRule 26(b)(4)(D)
Holding: Yes, but only under "exceptional circumstances", per FRCP 26(b)(4)(D)(ii). Reasoning: ∆ could not have obtained the information that π based the suit off of—Dr. Lucas's report—through any other manner, even through a Rule 35 examination, but a Rule 26 expert disclosure. Judgment: Motion for Protective Order denied. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/cases-for-topic/thomson-v.-the-haskell-co.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Cases for Topic/Thomson v. The Haskell Co.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 18:05:44 GMTRule 26(a)(1),(a)(2),(e)(1); Rule 37(c)(1). Required Disclosures are weird. You have to offer them without being asked—it's like giving youself up for free—whereas everything else must be asked for. You need to disclose people who you intend to use at trial, or who may be useful in finding the facts of the case. You need to disclose that a person exists only if you use their testimony, so that there are no surprises at trial. You don't have to disclose witnesses that will be used for the impeachment of another witness beacuse that would jeopardize the ability of the impeaching party to hold up the truth of a trial/testimony. Don't overdisclose—but NEVER underdisclose, for fear of sanctions in FRCP 37(c)(1). Other Required Disclosures The purpose of these other required disclosures is to, again, reduce the chance of surprise at trial. Supplemental Disclosures FRCP 26(e)(1) Expert Disclosures FRCP(a)(2) Pretrial Disclosures FRCP(a)(1) Limitations to Required Disclosures Not all cases require disclosures. For example: Student loan collection suits ▫ The government already knows... they gave you the money Review of an Administrative Record ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/required-disclosures/required-disclosures.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Required Disclosures/Required Disclosures.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:50:20 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/required-disclosures/rules/rule-26.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Required Disclosures/Rules/Rule 26.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:47:58 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/required-disclosures/rules/rule-37.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Required Disclosures/Rules/Rule 37.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:47:58 GMTFRCP 27–32. A deposition is where an attorney asks questions of a witness (a deponent), and the witness answers under oath. This usually never happens in court, but rather at an office. A reporter typically makes a transcript of the proceedings. Typically no judge is even present in these. Default amount allowed: maximum of 10 depositions, each deposition lasts for seven hours. Can ask things that normally wouldn't fly in court because depositions can show you where you need to look/what you need to request next. They can be VERY expensive. They require a ton of preparation—which is all billable.
Rule 27—Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony: someone is either close to dying or leaving the country, and their testimony is needed.
Rule 31—Depositions by Written Questions: hybrid between a deposition and an interrogatory.
Rule 30(b)(6)—Depositions for Organization to Produce Relevant Persons: tell us the people who we can talk to about this.
Rule 30(b)(2): Subpoena duces tecum: bring something with you to the deposition. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/depositions.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Depositions.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:45:24 GMTRule 27
Rule 28
Rule 29
Rule 30
Rule 31
Rule 32 ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/governing-deposition-rules.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Governing Deposition Rules.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:37:21 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/rule-32.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Rule 32.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:33:52 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/rule-31.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Rule 31.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:33:51 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/rule-30.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Rule 30.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:33:50 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/rule-29.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Rule 29.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:33:49 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/requests-for-admission/rule-36.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Requests for Admission/Rule 36.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:33:22 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/interrogatories/rule-33.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Interrogatories/Rule 33.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:33:16 GMTRule 36. These function as a sort of pleading device—if admitted, the admitted discovery acts as an established truth for undisputed facts. These also can be used for ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/requests-for-admission/requests-for-admission.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Requests for Admission/Requests for Admission.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:31:18 GMTRule 34 Requests for Production of Records are used to get access to documents, electronically stored information, things/items, and the inspection of land. The procedure for these requests is: Request for production under FRCP 34 for parties. Subpoena under FRCP 45 for non-parties. Companies make a ton of information—use this to notice discrepancies between that information and the facts of the case and other facts. You can't use R34 requests unless you understand how defendants/parties generate information and manage it. There is nothing that Rule 34 limits when it comes to the Requesting of Decouments/Production; however, FRCP 26 does provide for limits ot the Requests for Production. 3 Common Pitfalls for Requests for Production Requests that are too narrow These requests prevent you from other circumstantial/indirect evidence that could help you to establish a pattern. Think of how other people refer to the client/client's protected class(es) and ask for those. Think of different ways/platforms in which people communicate and request those. Requests that are too broad These could be really expensive for the client. They can also take so much time to sort through. You don't really even know what you're looking for when you make overly broad requests. Metadata Metadata=information about the data itself. This is stuff that the device stores in the file about the file's history, creation, etc. What can you reveal by digging deeper within these files? As a lawyer, you should scrub metadata only where you know there is no real, reasonably foreseeable litigation.
The Art of the FRCP 34 Production Request ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/requests-for-production-of-records/requests-for-production-of-records.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Requests for Production of Records/Requests for Production of Records.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:29:57 GMTRule 33. A party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Responding party must answer in writing and under oath. Ways to get more interrogatories: Going to the court and asking for more Scope of Case is too large, etc.... Stipulation by Opposing Counsel Opposing counsel grants, interrogatories increase—usually part of a trade. When would you use interrogatories? To figure out what to request in a Rule 34 Request for Production To use a cheaper discovery tool When you need the opposing party to do research under legal authority/obligation for you. Why wouldn't you use interrogatories? You can't ask follow up questions if you've exhausted all of your interrogatories. ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/interrogatories/interrogatories.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Interrogatories/Interrogatories.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:29:03 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/requests-for-production-of-records/rule-34.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Requests for Production of Records/Rule 34.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:25:15 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/requests-for-production-of-records/the-art-of-the-frcp-34-production-request.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Requests for Production of Records/The Art of the FRCP 34 Production Request.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:24:32 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/rule-27.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Rule 27.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:22:00 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/depositions/rules/rule-28.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Depositions/Rules/Rule 28.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:21:55 GMTFRCP 60(b), (c) Holding: Yes. Independent actions under Rule 60 don't require extra-jurisdictional basis in order to be proper. Reasoning: "Independent actions must . . . be reserved for those cases of 'injustices which, in certain circumstances or instances, are deemed sufficiently gross as to demand a departure' from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata." From Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). In these types of instances, the sense of these expressions is that, under Rule 60(b), an independent action should be available ONLY to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. Judgment: Remanded to U.S. District Court. ]]>claim-and-issue-preclusion/issue-preclusion/united-states-v.-beggerly,-524-u.s.-38-(1998)..htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Issue Preclusion/United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998)..mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:17:56 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/issue-preclusion/parklane-hosiery-co.-v.-shore.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Issue Preclusion/Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:11:23 GMTRule 11 sanctions; however, before discovery, you don't know certain things—especially if it's the first lawsuit on a matter—so judges are not predisposed to sanction attorneys. ]]>pre-trial/pleadings/the-answer.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The Answer.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:10:05 GMTTwombly & Iqbal changed the federal pleading requirements from Conley's notice-pleading standard to the plausibility-pleading standard. Judgment: uhhhh ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-8—jurisdiction-and-venue/mccleary-evans-v.-maryland-dept.-of-transportation.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 8—Jurisdiction and Venue/McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Dept. of Transportation.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:08:38 GMTpre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-8—jurisdiction-and-venue/jones-v.-bock.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 8—Jurisdiction and Venue/Jones v. Bock.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:08:19 GMTcase-brief-template.htmlCase Brief Template.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:08:08 GMTFrier v. City of Vandalia
Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Taylor v. Sturgell
Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith ]]>claim-and-issue-preclusion/claim-preclusion/claim-preclusion.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Claim Preclusion/Claim Preclusion.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/issue-preclusion/illinois-central-gulf-railroad-v.-parks.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Issue Preclusion/Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTIllinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
United States v. Beggerly, ]]>claim-and-issue-preclusion/issue-preclusion/issue-preclusion.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Issue Preclusion/Issue Preclusion.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/claim-preclusion/frier-v.-city-of-vandalia.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Claim Preclusion/Frier v. City of Vandalia.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/claim-preclusion/gargallo-v.-merrill-lynch,-pierce,-fenner-&-smith.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Claim Preclusion/Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/claim-preclusion/semtek-intl.-inc.-v.-lockheed-martin-corp.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Claim Preclusion/Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/claim-preclusion/taylor-v.-sturgell.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Claim Preclusion/Taylor v. Sturgell.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/facts.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Facts.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/holding.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Holding.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/issue.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Issue.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/judgment.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Judgment.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/rule.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Rule.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/facts.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Facts.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/holding.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Holding.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/issue.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Issue.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/judgment.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Judgment.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/reasoning.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Reasoning.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/rule.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Rule.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTFacts
Issue
Rule
Holding
Reasoning
Judgment ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990)/temple-v.-synthes-corp.,-498-u.s.-5,-reh'g-denied,-498-u.s.-1092-(1990).htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990)/Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990).mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTFacts
Issue
Rule
Holding
Reasoning
Judgment ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001).htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001).mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/price-v.-ctb,-inc.,-168-f.-supp.-2d-1299-(m.d.-ala.-2001)/reasoning.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/Price v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001)/Reasoning.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/facts.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Facts.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/holding.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Holding.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/issue.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Issue.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/judgment.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Judgment.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTFacts
Issue
Rule
Holding
Reasoning
Judgment ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974).htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974).mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/rule.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Rule.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTRule 19
Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 1092 (1990). — case ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-court-order-compulsory-joinder/rule-19.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Court Order- Compulsory Joinder/Rule 19.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTPrice v. CTB, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001). — case ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/by-defendants-third-party-claims/by-defendants-third-party-claims.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims/By Defendants- Third-Party Claims.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/mosely-v.-general-motors-corp.,-497-f.2d-1330-(8th-cir.-1974)/reasoning.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/Mosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)/Reasoning.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTMosely v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974). — case ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder/by-plaintiffs-permissive-joinder.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder/By Plaintiffs- Permissive Joinder.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTFacts
Issue
Rule
Holding
Reasoning
Judgment ]]>joinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013).htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013).mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/facts.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Facts.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/holding.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Holding.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/issue.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Issue.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/judgment.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Judgment.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/reasoning.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Reasoning.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/cordero-v.-voltaire,-llc,-2013-wl-6415667-(w.d.-tex.-dec.-6,-2013)/rule.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Cordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013)/Rule.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTRule 42(b) — rule ]]>joinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-18/rule-18.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 18/Rule 18.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTCordero v. Voltaire, LLC, 2013 WL 6415667 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013). — case ]]>joinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-13/rule-13.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 13/Rule 13.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-claims/rule-18/rule-42(b).htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Rule 18/Rule 42(b).mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTRule 18 — rule
Rule 13 — rule ]]>joinder/joinder-of-claims/joinder-of-claims.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Claims/Joinder of Claims.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTRule 20(a) — rule
By Plaintiffs: Permissive Joinder
By Defendants: Third-Party Claims
By Court Order: Compulsory Joinder ]]>joinder/joinder-of-parties/joinder-of-parties.htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/Joinder of Parties.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/joinder-of-parties/rule-20(a).htmlJoinder/Joinder of Parties/Rule 20(a).mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTZielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc. ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-10—pleading-complaint-formatting-and-information-rules/frcp-10—pleading-complaint-formatting-and-information-rules.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 10—Pleading-Complaint Formatting and Information Rules/FRCP 10—Pleading-Complaint Formatting and Information Rules.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-10—pleading-complaint-formatting-and-information-rules/zielinski-v.-philadelphia-piers,-inc.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 10—Pleading-Complaint Formatting and Information Rules/Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-11—signing-pleadings,-motions,-&-other-papers/christian-v.-mattell,-inc.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 11—Signing Pleadings, Motions, & Other Papers/Christian v. Mattell, Inc.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTChristian v. Mattell, Inc. ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-11—signing-pleadings,-motions,-&-other-papers/frcp-11—signing-pleadings,-motions,-&-other-papers.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 11—Signing Pleadings, Motions, & Other Papers/FRCP 11—Signing Pleadings, Motions, & Other Papers.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTStradford v. Zurich Ins. Co. — case ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-9—special-pleading-requirements/frcp-9—special-pleading-requirements.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 9—Special Pleading Requirements/FRCP 9—Special Pleading Requirements.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTTwombly and Iqbal? Rule: FRCP 9(b)—you have to plead specific circumstances constituting fraud or mistake in a fraud claim. Holding: No, because ∆ didn't plead specific circumstances with Twiqbal specificity. Reasoning: The primary purpose of 9(b) is to afford the accused litigant fair notice of the fraud claim and the factual background upon which it is based. ∆'s counterclaims fail because they didn't give such facts. Judgment: ∆s are granted leave to ament their counterclaim. Notes: fraud is treated separately because we enter into contracts/agreements so often, and all of them are attackable under fraud. ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-9—special-pleading-requirements/stradford-v.-zurich-ins.-co.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 9—Special Pleading Requirements/Stradford v. Zurich Ins. Co.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-7—pleadings.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 7—Pleadings.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTFRCP 7—Pleadings
FRCP 8—Jurisdiction and Venue
FRCP 9—Special Pleading Requirements
FRCP 10—Pleading/Complaint Formatting and Information Rules
FRCP 11—Signing Pleadings, Motions, & Other Papers
FRCP 12—Answers to the Complaint/Defenses and Objections ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-7–12.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 7–12.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-12—answers-to-the-complaint-defenses-and-objections.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 12—Answers to the Complaint-Defenses and Objections.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTZubulake v. UBS Warburg LLP ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/spoliation-discouraging-destruction-of-evidence/spoliation-discouraging-destruction-of-evidence.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Spoliation- Discouraging Destruction of Evidence/Spoliation- Discouraging Destruction of Evidence.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/spoliation-discouraging-destruction-of-evidence/zubulake-v.-ubs-warburg-llp.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Spoliation- Discouraging Destruction of Evidence/Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLP.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTSpoliation: Discouraging Destruction of Evidence
Required Disclosures
Depositions
Interrogatories
Requests for Production of Records
Compelled Physical/Mental Examinations
Requests for Admission ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery's-tools/discovery's-tools.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery's Tools/Discovery's Tools.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/background/aside-litigation-strategy.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Background/Aside- Litigation Strategy.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/scope-of-discovery/proportionality/proportionality.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Scope of Discovery/Proportionality/Proportionality.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTRequirements under FRCP 15
Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
Moore v. Baker — case
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation — case ]]>pre-trial/pleadings/amendment-to-the-pleadings/amendment-to-the-pleadings.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Amendment to the Pleadings/Amendment to the Pleadings.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/amendment-to-the-pleadings/beeck-v.-aquaslide-'n'-dive-corp.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Amendment to the Pleadings/Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/amendment-to-the-pleadings/bonerb-v.-richard-j.-caron-foundation.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Amendment to the Pleadings/Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/amendment-to-the-pleadings/requirements-under-frcp-15.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Amendment to the Pleadings/Requirements under FRCP 15.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/amendment-to-the-pleadings/moore-v.-baker.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Amendment to the Pleadings/Moore v. Baker.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/the-new-plausibility-standard-twiqbal-/ashcroft-v.-iqbal.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The New Plausibility Standard- -Twiqbal-/Ashcroft v. Iqbal.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/the-new-plausibility-standard-twiqbal-/bell-atlantic-corp.-v.-twombly.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The New Plausibility Standard- -Twiqbal-/Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
Ashcroft v. Iqbal ]]>pre-trial/pleadings/the-new-plausibility-standard-twiqbal-/the-new-plausibility-standard-twiqbal-.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The New Plausibility Standard- -Twiqbal-/The New Plausibility Standard- -Twiqbal-.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/the-traditional-notice-standard-conley/conley-v.-gibson.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The Traditional Notice Standard- Conley/Conley v. Gibson.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTConley v. Gibson ]]>pre-trial/pleadings/the-traditional-notice-standard-conley/the-traditional-notice-standard-conley.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The Traditional Notice Standard- Conley/The Traditional Notice Standard- Conley.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTWho has to do what in pleading?
The Traditional Notice Standard: Conley
The New Plausibility Standard: "Twiqbal"
The Reply
The Answer
Amendment to the Pleadings ]]>pre-trial/pleadings/pleadings.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Pleadings.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/the-reply.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/The Reply.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/pleadings/who-has-to-do-what-in-pleading-.htmlPre-Trial/Pleadings/Who has to do what in pleading-.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTBackground
Discovery's Tools
Scope of Discovery
Pre-trial Witness Lists & Final Pre-Trial Order
Cerrato v. Nutribullet, LLC
Wagoner v. Lewis Gale Medical Center, LLC
Rengifo v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc.
Hickman v. Taylor
Thomson v. The Haskell Co.
Chiquita International Ltd. v. M/V Bolero Reefer
Mueller v. Swift
Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories ]]>pre-trial/discovery/discovery.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Discovery.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/hickman-v.-taylor.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Hickman v. Taylor.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/mueller-v.-swift.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Mueller v. Swift.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/rengifo-v.-erevos-enterprises,-inc.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Rengifo v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/security-national-bank-of-sioux-city-v.-abbott-laboratories.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTappeals/anderson-v.-bessemer-city.htmlAppeals/Anderson v. Bessemer City.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTappeals/lauro-lines-s.r.l.-v.-chasser.htmlAppeals/Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTappeals/liberty-mutual-insurance-co.-v.-wetzel.htmlAppeals/Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTFRCP 7–12 ]]>pre-trial/complaints/complaints.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/Complaints.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTpre-trial/discovery/pre-trial-witness-lists-&-final-pre-trial-order.htmlPre-Trial/Discovery/Pre-trial Witness Lists & Final Pre-Trial Order.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTComplaints
Pleadings
Discovery
Avoiding Trial ]]>pre-trial/pre-trial.htmlPre-Trial/Pre-Trial.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTLiberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel
Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser
Anderson v. Bessemer City
Van Zee v. Hanson ]]>appeals/appeals.htmlAppeals/Appeals.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTappeals/van-zee-v.-hanson.htmlAppeals/Van Zee v. Hanson.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTtrial/monfore-v.-phillips.htmlTrial/Monfore v. Phillips.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTtrial/unitherm-food-systems,-inc.-v.-swift-eckrich,-inc.htmlTrial/Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/marvel-characters,-inc.-v.-kirby.htmlJoinder/Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTjoinder/united-states-v.-city-of-los-angeles.htmlJoinder/United States v. City of Los Angeles.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTtrial/conte-v.-emmons.htmlTrial/Conte v. Emmons.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTtrial/lind-v.-schenley-industries.htmlTrial/Lind v. Schenley Industries.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTMonfore v. Phillips
Conte v. Emmons
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
Lind v. Schenley Industries ]]>trial/trial.htmlTrial/Trial.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTClaim Preclusion
Issue Preclusion
Rule 60 ]]>claim-and-issue-preclusion/claim-and-issue-preclusion.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Claim and Issue Preclusion.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTclaim-and-issue-preclusion/rule-60.htmlClaim and Issue Preclusion/Rule 60.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTJoinder of Claims
Joinder of Parties
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby
United States v. City of Los Angeles ]]>joinder/joinder.htmlJoinder/Joinder.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTPre-Trial
Trial
Appeals
Claim and Issue Preclusion
Joinder ]]>civil-procedure-ii.htmlCivil Procedure II.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:06:04 GMTMcCleary-Evans v. Maryland Dept. of Transportation — case
Jones v. Bock — case ]]>pre-trial/complaints/frcp-7–12/frcp-8—jurisdiction-and-venue/frcp-8—jurisdiction-and-venue.htmlPre-Trial/Complaints/FRCP 7–12/FRCP 8—Jurisdiction and Venue/FRCP 8—Jurisdiction and Venue.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:23 GMTpre-trial/avoiding-trial/tolan-v.-cotton.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Tolan v. Cotton.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:11 GMTpre-trial/avoiding-trial/scott-v.-harris.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Scott v. Harris.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:10 GMTpre-trial/avoiding-trial/peralta-v.-heights-medical-center.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Peralta v. Heights Medical Center.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:09 GMTpre-trial/avoiding-trial/kalinauskas-v.-wong.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Kalinauskas v. Wong.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:07 GMTpre-trial/avoiding-trial/ferguson-v.-writers-guild-of-america.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Ferguson v. Writers Guild of America.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:06 GMTpre-trial/avoiding-trial/celotex-corp.-v.-catrett.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Celotex Corp. v. Catrett.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:05 GMTPeralta v. Heights Medical Center
Kalinauskas v. Wong
Ferguson v. Writers Guild of America
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
Tolan v. Cotton
Scott v. Harris ]]>pre-trial/avoiding-trial/avoiding-trial.htmlPre-Trial/Avoiding Trial/Avoiding Trial.mdSat, 25 Apr 2026 17:05:02 GMT