Brosius v. Botkin

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting use of \substantial factor\ analysis, in favor of proximate causation, where remedy sought is compensatory damages rather than restitution
• finding the district court’s proximate cause charge to the jury appropriate where plaintiffs sought “damages to compensate them for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the [defendants’] imprudence”
• \Our decision not to reach this issue on the merits is reinforced by the fact that it has not been adequately briefed and argued before this Court.\
• “[W]here damages are sought for breach of fiduciary duty under New York law, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct proximately caused injury in order to establish liability.”
• “Under New York law . . . [t]he failure to prove damages . . . is fatal to [a] plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action.” (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted)
• \[C]ausation is required to recover damages for breach of contract.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).