How cited: Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank Of Wisconsin · Go Syfert

Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank Of Wisconsin (1996)

green · 15 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wisconsin, 98 F.3d 985, 989 (7th Cir.1996). 1 We are sympathetic to Feldman’s contention that the district court abused *758 its discretion by imposing sanctions.
Quote Authority · N.D. Ind. · signal: see
See Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wis., 98 F.3d 985, 989 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e cannot say that her claims were so devoid of factual support that sanctions were appropriate.”); see also Moeck, 844 F.3d at 391 (“Although some of the factual allegations may have been exaggerated, the record includes evidence that provided a reasonable basis for the representations in the complaints and summary judgment submissions concerning Getz’s allegedly aggressive and discriminatory…
“[W]e cannot say that her claims were so devoid of factual support that sanctions were appropriate.”
green Diamond v. Nicholls (2020)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.
Nov. 5, 2015) (quoting Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wisc., 98 F.3d 985, 989 (7th Cir. 1996)).
Rule Authority · E.D. Wis.
As long as FS can prove that FS ever "conferred a benefit on” AOS, AOS “knew of the benefit,” and it would be inequitable to allow” AOS to “retain the benefit,” Bilharz, 98 F.3d at 988, FS will prevail on its unjust enrichment claim.
Rule Authority · Iowa
Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wis., 98 F.3d 985, 989 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Pac.
quoting Pac. Dunlop Holdings, Inc. v. Barosh, 22 F.3d 113, 118 (7th Cir. 1994)
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928, 936 (7th Cir.1989) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wisconsin, 98 F.3d 985, 989 (7th Cir.1996).
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see also
Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928, 936 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wisconsin, 98 F.3d 985, 989 (7th Cir. 1996).
Cited (see also) · N.D. Ill. · signal: see also
Ill. 2015); see also Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wis., 98 F.3d 985 , 989 (7th Cir.1996) 1 Great American argues that because Marubeni “identifies the Illinois location as a ‘service’ center, this implicitly suggests that warranty, product design, and testing are conducted at the Illinois location.” (Dkt. 16 at 5).
green Osundairo v. Glandian (2020)
Cited (see also) · N.D. Ill. · signal: see also
Ill. 2015); see also Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wis., 98 F.3d 985 , 989 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming summary judgment but reversing Rule 11 sanctions because “although [plaintiff's] arguments were undoubtedly weak, we cannot say that [plaintiff's] claims were so devoid of factual support that sanctions were appropriate”).
Cited · N.D. Ill. · signal: see
See Bilharz v. First Interstate Bank of Wis., 98 F.3d 985 , 989 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming summary judgment but reversing Rule 11 sanctions because “although [plaintiffs] arguments were undoubtedly weak, we cannot say that [plaintiffs] claims were so devoid of factual support that sanctions were appropriate”). 4.