Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Railway Co. v. Washington

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that allegations about one contract did not fairly encompass two other contracts “because each contract is unique and no two involved the same ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence.’”
• explaining that “one party” to a stipulation “need offer no evidence to prove it and the other is not allowed to disprove it”
• finding no relation back because the new claims concerned two different contracts from the contract described in the original claim, and thus did not involve the same transaction
• upholding the trial judge’s allowance of expert testimony describing generic economic principles, leaving the trier of fact to determine which scenario best fit the facts of the case
• references to defendant’s wealth improper because “[t]he only way the information could have affected the jury was to prejudice it”
• references to defendant’s wealth improper because “[t]he only way the information could have affected the jury was to prejudice it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).