Identiseal Corp. v. Positive Identification Systems, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
560 F.2d 298 (1977)
- Written by John Waller, JD
Facts
Identiseal Corp. (Identiseal) (plaintiff) entered into a franchising agreement with Positive Identification Systems, Inc. (PIS) (defendant) for the sale of its “Identiseal” product. Identiseal subsequently sued PIS for misrepresentation, alleging in its complaint that PIS represented that it was successful in promoting its products, but that in fact it was not. Identiseal’s attorney chose not to engage in discovery because he believed that his client’s chances of prevailing would be maximized if he developed his entire case at trial. In a final pretrial conference, the district court issued an order that the case be dismissed unless Identiseal conducted discovery. Pursuant to this order, the district court ultimately dismissed the complaint because Identiseal did not engage in discovery. Identiseal appealed on the grounds that the district court did not have the authority to order it to conduct discovery or suffer dismissal of the complaint.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Swygert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
