green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.3 score
“party may without a cross-appeal present any argument in support of the judgment challenged by his adversary even if the court below has rejected or not dealt with the contention.”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Remus Joint Venture v. McAnally
party may without a cross-appeal present any argument in support of the judgment challenged by his adversary even if the court below has rejected or not dealt with the contention.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Van Shaack Holdings Ltd. v. Van Schaack
close corporations that purchase their own stock must disclose to the sellers all information that meets the standard of 'materiality
cited
Cited "see"
Czapla v. Commerz Futures, LLC
See id., citing Jordan v. Duff and Phelps, Inc., 815 F.2d 429, 438 (7th Cir.1987), ce rt. denied, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Jones
See, Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1076-1079 (C.A.7 1987), cert. dism’d, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); Greenberg v. Sata, 822 F.2d 882, 885 (C.A.9 1987); Muthig v. Brant Point Nantucket, Inc., 838 F.2d 600, 603-604 (C.A.1 1988) ...
discussed
Cited "see"
Vild v. Visconsi
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1084 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (holding that a reviewing court cannot tell whether the district court abused its discretion absent articulated reasons); Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 158 (3d Cir.1986) (holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion). 44 The district court has not provided a rationale to allow us to review whether it has abused its discretion by denying the defendants' mot…
discussed
Cited "see"
Vild v. Visconsi
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1084 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (holding that a reviewing court cannot tell whether the district court abused its discretion absent articulated reasons); Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 158 (3d Cir.1986) (holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion).
discussed
Cited "see"
D'Aquino v. Citicorp/Diner's Club, Inc.
Hays v. Sony Corp. of America, 847 F.2d 412, 418 (7th Cir.1988); see Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States
See American Permac v. United States, 831 F.2d 269, 273 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); Atlantic Sugar v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States
See American Permac v. United States, 831 F.2d 269, 273 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); Atlantic Sugar v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United States
See American Permac, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 269, 275-76 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. dismissed 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Nicholson v. Yamaha Motor Co.
See Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo.1987), cert. dismissed 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert N. Beeman v. James F. Fiester, James F. Mazzulia, Jack Richards, Peter Kuttner, William Birch, Richard Clarkson, and Paul Vom Brack
See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (Rule 11 picks up malicious prosecution — "filing a colorable suit for the purpose of imposing expense on the defendant rather than for the purpose of winning.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Patrick Wayde Mealy and Lance B. Spotts
United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1475-76 (7th Cir.1987) (arguments not presented to district court are waived for purposes of appeal), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1738 , 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988); see Jordan v. Duff & Phelps, Inc., 815 F.2d 429, 438 (7th Cir.1987) (“appellate court ought not put words in a party’s mouth and use them as the grounds on which to decide”), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Poole v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp.
See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Training Institute, Inc. v. City of Chicago
See, e.g., Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1081 (7th Cir.1987) (“[A] disappointed bidder for a contract in Illinois lacks a property interest.”), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); Coyne-Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Development Board of State of Illinois, 616 F.2d 341, 342-43 (7th Cir.1980) (“A bidder on a government contract has no legally enforceable rights against the award of the contract to a competitor other than those the government has seen fit to confer. * * * Illinois has not conferred any right on bidders-”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vera Smith, of the Estate of Robert J. Smith, Deceased v. Duff and Phelps, Inc., a Corporation and Claire v. Hansen
(2×)
See, e.g., Jordan v. Duff and Phelps, 815 F.2d 429 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); McLaury v. Duff and Phelps, 691 F.Supp. 1090 (N.D.Ill.1988); Guy v. Duff and Phelps, 672 F.Supp. 1086 (N.D.Ill.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Continental Bank N.A. v. Everett
In Illinois, a duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract (including guaranties), Dayan v. McDonald’s Corp., 125 Ill.App.3d 972, 989-90 , 81 Ill.Dec. 156, 169 , 466 N.E.2d 958, 971 (1984); McHenry State Bank v. Y & A Trucking, Inc., 117 Ill.App.3d 629, 632-33 , 73 Ill.Dec. 485, 488 , 454 N.E.2d 345, 348 (1983); see also Jordan v. Duff and Phelps, Inc., 815 F.2d 429, 438 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1067 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988); and the obligation to perform in good faith may not be waived.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryant v. Bloch Companies
Credit Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures Ltd., 792 F.2d 797 (9th Cir.1986) (dismissal of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction did not preclude trial court from imposing sanctions under Rule 11); see also Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed 485 U.S. 901 , 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (trial court retained jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions despite a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal; responsibility to answer for violation of Rule 11, as for contempt of court, accompanies the act); Greenburg v. Sala, 822 F.2d 882 (9th Cir.1987) (di…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Deere & Company v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft
See also Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1079 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1101 , 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988) (award of fees under Rule 11 is a sanction for violating a rule of court, not unlike a contempt of court sanction); In re TCI, Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir.1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Weil
v.
Chu
v.
Chu
No. 87-1179.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 29, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1) · Supreme Court of Colorado (1)
Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.