18 Cited authorities

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

    896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 1,779 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 165 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 202 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 114 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 85 times   2 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 239 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 47 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 83 times
    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. 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 ”
  10. Arete Partners, L.P. v. Gunnerman

    643 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 26 times
    Noting that pre- and postjudgment interest rates are calculated the same under Section 304.003