18 Cited authorities

  1. Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 1,963 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one opposing summary judgment cannot rely simply on "conclusory allegations" or "unsupported speculation"
  2. Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.

    552 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 205 times
    Rejecting the defendant's patent preemption argument in denying rehearing in a trade secrets misappropriation and unjust enrichment case
  3. Walker v. City of Lakewood

    272 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an organization was injured by, among other things, delayed contractual payments and government client's non-renewal of the contract
  4. Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Dooyang Corp.

    147 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that the "loss of money or property must stem from" the Chapter 93A misconduct
  5. Berish v. Bornstein

    437 Mass. 252 (Mass. 2002)   Cited 120 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding remedy for willful breach of fiduciary duty resulting in personal gain to include disgorgement
  6. Janigan v. Taylor

    344 F.2d 781 (1st Cir. 1965)   Cited 237 times
    Holding that defendant cannot avoid disgorgement of profits attributable to efforts which were part of his regular duties as a corporate director and officer for which he received a salary
  7. Krys v. Aaron (In re Refco Inc. Sec. Litig.)

    826 F. Supp. 2d 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 62 times
    Finding it insufficient for pleading intent to procure breach that "defendant engaged in wrongful conduct that had the effect of impairing a plaintiff's contract"
  8. Berg v. First State Ins. Co.

    915 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs suffered no damages under RICO because it was undisputed that they did not incur any out-of-pocket expenses as a result of defendants' conduct
  9. Arete Partners, L.P. v. Gunnerman

    643 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 40 times
    Noting that “prejudgment interest accrues at the rate for postjudgment interest” and “the applicable [Texas] statute sets postjudgment interest at either ‘the prime rate as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the date of computation' or ‘five percent a year if the prime rate as published by the Board of Governors . . . is less than five percent'” (quoting, inter alia, Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 304.003(c)-)
  10. Mogel v. Unum Life Ins. Co.

    547 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 38 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “UNUM cannot be said to have completed its fiduciary functions under the plan when it set up the [RAAs]” because “delivery of the checkbook did not constitute a ‘lump sum payment’ called for by the policies ”