green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1994 ·
…close corporations that purchase their own stock must disclose to the sellers all information that meets the standard of 'materiality
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 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.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Van Shaack Holdings Ltd. v. Van Schaack
(2×)
close corporations that purchase their own stock must disclose to the sellers all information that meets the standard of 'materiality
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Griffith v. Smith
it is not permissible to file suit and use discovery as the sole means of finding out whether you have a case .... rule 11 requires independent inquiry.
cited
Cited "see"
Bardon Trimount, Inc. v. Guyott
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1076-1077 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 (1988); Hughes v. Unified Sch.
discussed
Cited "see"
Czapla v. Commerz Futures, LLC
(2×)
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"
Galen Schrag Merlin Kaufman Michael Maloney Dale McCurry A.J. McCurry Robert McCurry Odel McCurry Cecil McCurry James Meier William G. Schwartz, John R. Nickelson, Individually, and in His Capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Neola Nickelson, James Craig Dodd, Esq. v. Ted Dinges, Jr. Gary Dinges Mark Youngers Charles Brooks Jay Ewing Robert \Bob\" Simpson Bonaventure A. Kreutzer
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 (1988). 45 As the district court explained, "[h]ad plaintiffs and their counsel been candid and/or competent, defendants Dieker and Kreutzer would have been dismissed from this lawsuit much earlier, and the court would have been spared the time and resources it has taken to resolve this matter." Schrag, 150 F.R.D. at 682 .
cited
Cited "see"
Harjit Singh v. Arthur J. Curry, Christine Curry, Sukhjit Gill, Barry H. Greenburg, and Nathan's Deli, Inc., an Illinois Corporation
See generally Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Catherine Ladner v. Thornton Township and Thornton Township Youth Committee, Inc.
See Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1084 (7th Cir.1987), (courts must take seriously, colorable requests for Rule 11 sanctions and adequately explain decision to deny sanctions), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901 (1988); Dreis & Krump Mfg. v. International Assoc. of Machinists, 802 F.2d 247, 254-55 (7th Cir.1986) (court abused its discretion in denying, without explanation, sanctions against a plaintiff who filed an obviously meritless suit). 17 We reject this contention.
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., Ltd. v. United States
(2×)
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. v. United States
(2×)
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"
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
(2×)
See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F. 2d 1073, 1076-1079 (CA7 1987), cert. dism'd, 485 U. S. 901 (1988); Greenberg v. Sala, 822 F. 2d 882, 885 (CA9 1987); Muthig v. Brant Point Nantucket, Inc., 838 F. 2d 600, 603-604 (CA1 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
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).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nicholson v. Yamaha Motor Co.
(2×)
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"
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).
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-”).
examined
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
(4×)
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
(2×)
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…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
v.
Camacho et ux.
v.
Camacho et ux.
No. 87-883.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 25, 1988.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.