Petkus v. Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• considering only \whether this case could result in a claim for benefits other than any benefits that may be paid in excess of the Section 415 limitations.\
• \[S]uch footnote arguments are inappropriate and may be disregarded. If [defendant] wished to rely on this argument it should have raised it in the body of its brief.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).