Bmk Corp. v. Clayton Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that plaintiff had a preexisting business relationship “wholly separate” from its relationship with the defendant
• finding that proof of past profits and expenses is required in some cases but not in others
• the trial court was not required to define or explain a phrase used in the instruction where “[t]hroughout the course of the trial, each side proffered its meaning of the phrase” and the jury was able to consider “the evidence presented at trial to determine its meaning”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).