Arnold v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that provision was “not a liquidated damages clause since it ha[d] nothing to do with a party’s breach; it merely compensated [one party] for any loss due to registration delay”
• holding that a decision to dismiss a complaint seeking rescission was “premature” and “whether the status quo could be achieved is a question of fact and could not be decided solely on the pleadings”
• holding that “neither a complaint nor references to a complaint which results in a consent judgment may properly be cited in the pleadings” because there had been no “actual adjudication of any of the issues”
• stating that such orders, like criminal nolo contendere pleas, are excluded under Rule 410
• noting that a provision with “nothing to do with a party’s breach” is “not a 22 liquidated damages clause”
• stating that “[e]videntiary questions . . . should especially be avoided” at the pleadings stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).