Schaeffer v. Illinois Central Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• quotingCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)
• granting declaratory relief on insurer’s motion for summary judgment where insurer established the defendant clinics submitted bills for services that were not lawfully provided
• granting summary judgment in favor of insurer and holding that an insurer can refuse, payments for services unlawfully rendered as “it would be inequitable to allow Defendants to retain those benefits”
• “Fraudulent conduct in the context of billing for PIP benefits qualifies as a deceptive act for purposes of FDUTPA.” (citations omitted)
• “Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of their trade and commerce by unlawfully operating medical clinics, in violation of Florida law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).