Logourl black

Identiseal Corp. v. Positive Identification Systems, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
560 F.2d 298 (1977)


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

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Swygert, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.