Edmund E. Fleming v. Lind-Waldock & Co., Barry Breech, Intervenor-Appellant. Edmund E. Fleming v. Lind-Waldock & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although the district court empowered the receiver “to prevent irreparable loss, damage and injury to commodity customers and clients,” the receiver lacked standing to sue for claims belonging to investors, such as violations of the Commodity Exchange Act
• each general allegation must be supported by a specific factual basis and pleadings are not sufficient where they rest on unsubstantiated Conclusions
• “A witness can qualify as an expert through practical 26 experience in a particular field, not just through academic training.”
• “To be clear, Vela is alleged to be an employee of Western . . . .”
• new issues raised in response to summary judgment were not appropriate for consideration
• “Summary judgment is not a procedural second chance to flesh out inadequate pleadings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).