Toulmin v. Austin

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that mitigation damages are recoverable “even if other business considerations later informed the [plaintiffs] decisions: no business judgment is exercised in a vacuum....”
• denying motion for reconsideration based on availability of Rule 60(b) relief
• “We are aware of no authority that would permit [the court] to award costs associated with a capital infusion while accounting for only a fraction of its corresponding benefits.”
• “no business judgment is exercised in a vacuum ... [and] it is thus irrelevant that [the bank] may have had independent business reasons” for executing a transaction mitigating the breach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).