Flanders v. Hill Aircraft & Leasing Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is error for a trial court to permit defenses that go to both the assessment of damages as well as the right of recovery because it “would leave the defendant in as good [a] position when he was in default as though he had answered”
• reversing trial court, which allowed a defaulting defendant to present evidence regarding the right of recovery
• holding it was error for trial court to allow defendant to dispute that which it had admitted through default, or, given the defendant’s default, to require plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence elements of its claims against the defendant, other than damages
• holding it was error for trial court to allow defendant to dispute that which it had admitted through default, or, given the defendant’s default, to require plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence elements of its claims against the defendant, other than damages
• holding it was error for trial court to allow defendant to dispute that which it had admitted through default, or, given the defendant’s default, to require plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence elements of its claims against the defendant, other than damages
• concerning nominal damages in contract case where plaintiff received default judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).