Ingersoll Milling MacHine Co. v. John P. Granger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, in the analogous Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act context, that a judgment was \final\ and granted \recovery of a sum of money\ despite the fact that additional calculations of interest and exchange rates were necessary
• upholding district court’s decision to stay proceedings pending outcome of Belgian proceedings on same issue
• using the Colorado River factors to “guide” the court’s evaluation of the international abstention claim
• procedures afforded by the Belgian judicial system are fundamentally fair and should be recognized under the Illinois Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act
• doctrine of res judicata prevents recognition court from relitigating issues already decided in foreign court
• “[G]iven that there were no witnesses, due at least in part to Ingersoll’s own tactical decision, Ingersoll cannot point to the lack of cross-examination as a violation of due process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).