McDonald Coal Co. v. Heiner

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 err in refusing to consider affidavit submitted by plaintiffs for the first time in a motion for reconsideration
• concluding that the phrase “to the extent permissible under the law” “would have no function if the [forum selection] clause were not mandatory — if, in other words, a party could sue anywhere he wanted”
• concluding that the phrase “to the extent permissible under the law” “would have no function if the [forum selection] clause were not mandatory — if, in other words, a party could sue anywhere he wanted”
• finding defendant to be “closely related” to German signatories because plaintiffs alleged that defendant entirely controlled these signatories
• refusing to consider argument that a party did not raise until after the court had dismissed the suit
• refusing to consider argument that a party did not raise until after the court had dismissed the suit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).