Gebhardt v. Conagra Foods

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “expert testimony . . . cannot be considered at this [12(b)(6)] procedural juncture”
• “The keystone of plaintiffs’ materiality argument is their allegation that UAP’s misrepresentations caused ConAgra to appear to be earning more than it was.”
• finding revenue overstatement in earning statements materially misleading

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).