Andrew H.W. Olsen v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, a Division of United Technologies Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “we may affirm on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, including grounds not relied upon by the district court” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• affirming district court’s dismissal of ERISA and common law claims, noting that Rule 9(b) “requires that all fraud claims be pleaded with particularity”
• “Plaintiffs whose complaints are dismissed pursuant to Rule 9(b) are typically given an opportunity to amend their complaint.”
• “It is well settled that we may affirm on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, including grounds not relied upon by the district court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ʺIt is well settled that we may affirm on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, including grounds not relied upon by the district court.ʺ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “It is well settled that we may affirm on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, including grounds not relied upon by the district court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).