James Adams v. Johns-Manville Corporation, and Raymark Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing an oral settlement where evidence showed one party failed to communicate its alleged intent not to be bound
• motion to enforce settlement agreement does not give rise to right to jury trial
• a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is essentially “an action to 28 specifically enforce a contract”
• “[Wlhere the parties dispute the existence or terms of the [settlement] agreement, an evidentiary hearing is required.” (citation omitted)
• “In his order denying reconsideration, the judge persuasively reasoned: ‘Raymark did in fact receive an evidentiary hearing on the issue of formation of the settlement agreement.’”
• “Ordinarily, a district court is empowered to enforce a settlement agreement through summary proceedings. However, where the parties dispute the existence or terms of the agreement, an evidentiary hearing is required.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).