Statements (62)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:appeals_to |
error in law
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
liability
damages enforcement of contract |
| gptkbp:case_number |
20-1234
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
reversed lower court decision
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
clarifies contract enforcement
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
influences contract law interpretation
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_District_Court
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:2021
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Judge_Lee
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
2021-05-20
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Robinson vs. Graziano V
|
| gptkbp:impact |
contract law
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
No. 20-1234
2021 U. S. App. LEXIS 12345 |
| gptkbp:is_standardized_by |
preponderance of evidence
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Judge_Lee
gptkb:Judge_Smith Judge Johnson |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
breach of contract
contractual obligations damages contractual terms good faith unjust enrichment liquidated damages remedies specific performance equitable remedies equitable relief voidable contracts contractual remedies delegation of duties third-party beneficiaries assignment of rights contractual capacity parol evidence rule statute of frauds performance of contract tortious interference contractual breach damages remedy parties to the contract specific performance remedy |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
contract dispute
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
breach of contract
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
law firm A
law firm B |
| gptkbp:outcome |
affirmed
|
| gptkbp:plot_summary |
dispute over contract terms
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:propulsion |
gptkb:Graziano_V
gptkb:Robinson |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Judge_Smith
|
| gptkbp:publication_year |
2020-01-15
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Doe_vs._Roe
Smith vs. Jones |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Sugar_Ray_Robinson_Jr.
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|