Peter G. Kohler and Walter J. Kohler v. Leslie Hindman, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and Richard M. Thune

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a consignment agreement allowing an auction house to rescind the sale of painting in its \sole discretion\ was analogous to a satisfaction agreement
• “In disputes such as this one that arise from a contract, Illinois law respects the contract's choice-of-law clause as long as the contract is valid.”
• “[A] statement made in one lawsuit cannot be a judicial admission in another . . . . It can be evidence in the other lawsuit, but no more.
• “[A] statement made in one lawsuit cannot be a judicial admission in another.”
• “Ms. Hindman’s statement in her state court suit is not even competent evidence in this case because it states a legal conclusion and is not the admission of a fact that could be dispositive.”
• all claims depended on definition of scope of agent’s authority to sell

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).