Carlson v. Hallinan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that executive defendants were on both sides of a decision to cause their company to pay them executive compensation and thus bore the burden of establishing their compensation was entirely fair
• noting that, in a bench trial, it is within the court’s discretion to allow a party to supplement the record before judgment
• holding post- trial that an accounting would be necessary after “Plaintiffs’ showing of definite instances where [fiduciary] Defendants did not properly allocate expenses”
• explaining that a supplemental evidentiary hearing about an affidavit submitted after the close of evidence “would waste judicial resources”
• holding defendants failed to show the fairness of their compensation where no credible “attempt to quantify the value of those goods and services or to show the relation between them and the [compensation]” was made
• rejecting contract claim where plaintiffs failed to prove “that any damages resulted from the violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).