Anderson v. Dinn

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that allegations regarding conduct that took place over a “relatively short, definite timeframe—in no case longer than one month—are sufficiently detailed” to satisfy Rule 9
• finding allegations that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties only because they entered into a contractual relationship “[i]nsufficient to establish the plausible existence of a fiduciary relationship.”
• dismissing unjust enrichment claim based on enforceable contract governing parties’ dispute
• “this most basic element of breach must be alleged to state a claim for tortious interference with contract.”
• Kansas law does not allow unjust enrichment claims where contractual remedies available; plaintiff cannot rely on unjust enrichment claim when binding and enforceable contract existed
• precise date is not necessarily required to satisfy Rule 9(b); allegations referring to a relatively short, definite time frame were sufficient to give the defendant notice of the misconduct alleged

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).