Pietka v. Chelco Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• an amendment was proper because it relied on “essentially the same” evidence as the other claims and could have been presented without delay
• “Decisions concerning the award of pre-judgment interest are questions of fact, and their determination will not be disturbed on review unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”
• “[C]onduct tantamount to fraud, hindrances to payment collection, or other bad faith inducements designed to delay collection, are considered to be unreasonable delays.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).