Dennis Marlow and Provest, Incorporated, Formerly Known as Dennis Marlow, Incorporated v. Winston & Strawn, a Partnership, and Leslie A. Blau

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the defendant never asked the court to dismiss the action with prejudice in response to the plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(2) motion
• noting that the defendant never asked the court to dismiss the action with prejudice in response to the plaintiffs Rule 41(a)(2) motion
• Noting that such terms and conditions “are the quid for the quo of allowing the plaintiff to dismiss his suit without being prevented by the doctrine of res judicata from bringing the same suit again.”
• \A court should not label something as a term and condition yet not afford the affected party an opportunity to consider his options before making his decision.\
• “[A] plaintiff who moves for dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) must be given a reasonable opportunity to withdraw his mo‐ tion in the event the district court grants the motion but only with prejudice.”
• “[A] plaintiff who moves for dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) must be given a reasonable opportunity to withdraw his mo‐ tion in the event the district court grants the motion but only with prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).