Research & Development Corp. of Illinois v. Chase

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the claim accrued by a certain date because “based on the information he possessed prior to that date, [the claimant] believed strongly enough in his claim to (unsuccessfully) seek legal representation”
• holding that the claim accrued by a certain date because “based on the information he possessed prior to that date, [the claimant] believed strongly enough in his claim to (unsuccessfully) seek legal 24 representation”
• noting that despite surviving summary judgment, circumstantial evidence regarding proof of the documents \may prove to be altogether vulnerable at trial\
• holding that “where the innocent party has produced some (not insubstantial) evidence in support of his claim, the intentional destruction of relevant evidence by the opposing party may push a claim that might not otherwise survive summary judgment over the line”
• declaring that a federal court’s personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is governed by the law of the forum state, subject to certain constitutional limitations of due process
• explaining that the circumstances must be such that “the party responsible for the destruction . . . should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).