§Why CasetextPricing

Peterson et al v. Aaron's, Inc. et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment

16 Cited authorities

  1. Cox v. Adm' U.S. Steel & Carnegie

    17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994)   Cited 814 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Eleventh Circuit does not follow the non-identity rule, and noting that it would permit vicarious liability even if it did follow the non-identity rule

  2. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet

    405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005)   Cited 540 times
    Holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to raise a Contracts Clause claim based on rescission of a contract between a town and a developer where the plaintiff was neither a party to nor an interested beneficiary of the contract

  3. Metge v. Baehler

    762 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 641 times
    Holding that control person merely must possess, not necessarily exercise, the power to determine the acts or omissions upon which the underlying violation is predicated

  4. Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co.

    570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1978)   Cited 483 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 10b-5 damages must be offset by amount of settlement

  5. Aetna Casualty, Surety v. Leahey Constr. Co.

    219 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that under Ohio law, "requisite intent and knowledge may be shown by circumstantial evidence"

  6. Sender v. Mann

    423 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (D. Colo. 2006)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that bankruptcy trustee had standing to bring action based on unconditional assignment of claims by creditors

  7. Goldberg v. UBS AG

    660 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter where the complaint alleged that the defendant's client had engaged in fundraising for Hamas, where the client's parent organization had been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the United States government, and where "numerous . . . publicly available sources of information suggested that [it] was funneling money to terrorist organizations"

  8. Stat-Tech Liquidating Trust v. Fenster

    981 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Colo. 1997)   Cited 55 times
    Stating that where "the crucial issue is one on which the movant will bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial, summary judgment can be entered only if the movant submits evidentiary materials to establish all of the elements of the claim or defense"

  9. Perlman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    559 F. App'x 988 (11th Cir. 2014)   Cited 28 times
    Describing allegations that a bank vice-president reviewed the accounts and "quickly concluded that there was unusual activity occurring in those accounts such that it 'raise[d] the hair on the back of your neck,'" but that, despite the bank's custom to close accounts within 30 days of the "detection of confirmed questionable activity," the accounts remained open for another three months

  10. Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC

    453 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs stated an ATA claim against a bank for providing services to a foundation that had been designated by Israel as a terrorist organization, and whose accounts had been frozen by a British regulator on evidence that it channeled money to Hamas