Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lewis v. Rumsfeld.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lewis v. Rumsfeld Anchor | green | “the party making the motion would be unable to contest matters presented to the court for the first time in the opposing party's reply.” | 8 |
| 2 | Lewis v. Rumsfeld | green | “the standard for granting a leave to file a surreply is whether the party making the motion would be unable to contest matters presented to the court for the first time in the opposing party's reply.” | 7 |
| 3 | Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan | green | “sur-replies are generally disfavored,” | 5 |
| 4 | Ying Qing Lu v. Lezell | green | “the decision to grant or deny leave to file a sur-reply is committed to the sound discretion of the court,” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.