ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli, S.R.L.

3 Citing briefs

  1. Jaffe v. Household Intl Inc, et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed August 3, 2009

    THE JURY’S VERDICTS ARE IRRECONCILABLY INCONSISTENT “When a jury returns a factually inconsistent general verdict, the verdict cannot stand.” Turyna, 83 F.3d at 181; accord Deloughey v. City of Chicago, 422 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2005); ABM Marking, Inc., 353 F.3d at 543-44; Frain v. Andy Frain, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 97, 100 (N.D. Ill. 1987). Allowing a verdict procured by jury confusion to stand is a “miscarriage of justice.”

  2. Jaffe v. Household Intl Inc, et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed September 3, 2009

    Case 1:02-cv-05893 Document 1656 Filed 09/03/2009 Page 20 of 85 - 3 - conscience.” Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310, 315 (7th Cir. 1995); see also ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli, S.R.L., 353 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, the Court will not set aside a jury verdict as long as a reasonable basis exists in the record to support the verdict.

  3. Wisconsin Masons Health Care Fund et al v. Sid's Sealants, Llc et al

    Brief in Opposition

    Filed March 22, 2017

    A party has the right to an accounting if a legal remedy would be inadequate and if there is one of the following: (1) a breach of a fiduciary relationship between the parties; (2) a need for discovery; (3) fraud; or (4) the existence of mutual accounts, which are of a complex nature. ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli, S.R.L., 353 F. 3d 541, 545 (7th Cir. 2003). Defendants meet these requirements and therefore have a right to an accounting.