Tas Distributing Company, Incorporated v. Cummins Engine Company, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that new products “incorporat[ing] both the Temp-A-Start and Temp-A-Stop technologies” were not comparable to an existing product incorporating only one such technology
• holding that new products “incorporat[ing] both the Temp-A-Start and Temp-A-Stop technologies” were not comparable to an existing product incorporating only one such technology
• stating that sales of an “inherently different” product renders comparison with the plaintiff’s product “somewhat speculative” and “counsels extreme caution” in relying on such a comparison in measuring lost profits
• discussing the general rule in Illinois that “expected profits of a new commercial business are considered too uncertain, specific and remote to permit recovery”
• discussing general rule in Illinois that “expected profits of a new commercial business are consid- ered too uncertain, specific and remote to permit recovery”
• affirming summary judgment on breach of contract claim where it was impossible for the plaintiff to calculate damages within a reasonable degree of certainty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).