Appleton Electric Company v. Graves Truck Line, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Rule 54(c) was not violated because “the 17 proposed default order which was served upon [defendant] amounted to an amendment of the 18 plaintiffs’ prayer for relief”
• noting that the plaintiff’s complaint requested damages in an “unstated amount[,]” so it contained no “damage ceilings”
• noting the term “sum certain” in this context means an amount capable of being computed
• “The apparent purpose of limiting default judgments to the amount prayed for is to protect defendants who choose to default, relying on the damage ceilings contained in plaintiffs’ prayers.”
• “The apparent purpose of limiting default judgments to the amount prayed for is to protect defendants who choose to default, relying on the damage ceilings contained in plaintiffs’ prayers.”
• affirming default judgment and finding no violation of Rule 53(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).