Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Dieterich

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there is no requirement that an attorney prove up the reasonableness of her fees with each of the Arthur Andersen factors
• “Whether a contract is modified depends on the parties’ intentions and is a question of fact.”
• \Contract modification is an affirmative defense.... The burden of proving modification rests on the party asserting the modification.\ (citations omitted)
• ―[T]he Company does not explain why the arguments were incurable based on an evaluation of the whole case. And after examining the entire record, we cannot say that the error was so harmful that its effect could not have been removed by a proper curative instruction.‖
• “[T]he Company does not explain why the arguments were incurable based on an evaluation of the whole case. And after examining the entire record, we cannot say that the error was so harmful that its effect could not have been removed by a proper curative instruction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).