§Why CasetextPricing

Grede v. Folan et al

MOTION

14 Cited authorities

  1. Martis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance

    388 Ill. App. 3d 1017 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 164 times
    Finding that "[b]ecause there was no valid underlying fraud claim, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim"

  2. Brown v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.

    991 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 145 times
    Holding that remand not required even where district court did not recite all factors as to whether reliance by investors on a representation was justified

  3. Rissman v. Rissman

    213 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 112 times
    Holding that a clause that assured the plaintiff "had not relied on any prior oral statement" in making the transaction in dispute was a no-reliance clause

  4. Teamsters Local 282 Pension Tr. Fd. v. Angelos

    762 F.2d 522 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 157 times
    Stating that an investor may not ask a court to focus on a misrepresentation and ignore information that has already been disseminated

  5. Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity

    366 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that for the purposes of the ICFA the plaintiff must be a consumer pursuant to the statute and reasoning that "the business purchaser is [generally] not a consumer because his only use of the purchased product is as an input into the making of a product that he sells, in contrast to the individual who consumes a six-pack of beer for pleasure or nutrition rather than incorporating the beer into a product . . . "

  6. Goldstein v. S.E.C

    451 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 72 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Finding agency interpretation arbitrary where it was at best counterintuitive and came “close to violating the plain language of the statute”

  7. Ray v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

    482 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 67 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment where the plaintiffs failed to cite any evidence that the defendants' misrepresentations caused the company's share price to drop

  8. Univ. Guar. Life v. Coughlin

    481 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times
    Holding where a court actually decided the issue in question, law of the case applies

  9. Louros v. Kreicas

    367 F. Supp. 2d 572 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that Martin Act preemption "foreclose" only causes of action alleging "dishonesty or deception"

  10. Porter v. Shearson Lehman Bros. Inc.

    802 F. Supp. 41 (S.D. Tex. 1992)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that subjective projections of future price of oil and gas and estimated return on capital are not material statements as a matter of law

  11. Section 548 - Fraudulent transfers and obligations

    11 U.S.C. § 548   Cited 6,509 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Seeking to avoid constructively fraudulent transfers

  12. Section 815 ILCS 505/1

    815 ILCS 505/1   Cited 2,169 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Defining "consumer" as "any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household"