Charleston Concrete Floor Co. v. State Road Commission

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 some question as to whether we review an un-preserved claim of substantive unreasonableness for plain error or abuse of discretion
• noting that there is some question as to - 9 - whether we review an unpreserved claim of substantive unreasonableness for plain error or abuse of discretion
• upholding district court’s finding that NewGen sought 6 “contractual damages directly proportional to [Safe Cig]’s breach of the contracts” and 7 therefore the amount of money at stake did not bar default judgment
• “Merely pointing to a coconspirator’s sentence, without more, does not prove the existence of an impermissible sentencing disparity.”
• BIA committed legal error because it “misapprehended the breadth of its own authority”
• assuming without deciding that review is for abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).