James E. Simon Co. v. Ardelt-Horn Construction Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “doctrine of law of the case does not bar reconsideration” of the panel decision on a prior appeal where the “Supreme Court’s decision” in a recent case “is intervening authority which we are obligated to follow”
• affirming district court’s 8 conclusion that employee’s subsequent discharge for a tax conviction served as an 9 “independent intervening event” that cut off his damages claim in wrongful discharge 10 case
• controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).