Schieffelin & Co., a Delaware Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Valley Liquors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that breach of an underlying distributorship agreement cannot be used to set off damages caused by breach of purchase orders
• highlighting that purchase orders — not the distributorship agreement — designated the price, type, and quantity of the goods for any particular sale
• permitting certification where defendant filed counterclaims and plaintiff asserted defenses that were “at least plausible”
• permitting certification where defendant filed counterclaims and plaintiff asserted defenses that were “at least plausible”
• affirming the entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) despite a remaining coun- terclaim, but noting that “enforcement might have been stayed under appropriate conditions under Rule 62(h
• affirming the entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) despite a remaining counterclaim, but noting that “enforce- ment might have been stayed under appropriate conditions under Rule 62(h),” although the party did not make such a claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).