Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Jim Graham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff had demonstrated “far more than a ‘hope’ ” of a future relationship
• holding that there is “no difference between a prescription by policy that leaves no room for choice and a proscription that does the same”
• noting that a Plaintiff bringing a tortious interference claim “need not allege inducement through egregious means, such as libel, slander, coercion, or disparagement”
• noting that “[a] district court may consider a document that a complaint specifically references [and that is integral to the complaint] without converting the motion into one for summary judgment”
• finding that plaintiff demonstrated far more than a “hope” of a future relationship where transportation agency “signed a contractually binding Term Sheet preliminarily selecting [plaintiff] to develop property” above subway rail station
• finding that “per-suad[ing] his fellow Board members to add an affordable housing requirement to the project with approving the original Term Sheet” was “an exercise of Graham’s authority as a Board member”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).