George Knight & Co. v. Watson Wyatt & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that plaintiff’s failure to make further inquiry to resolve an apparent inconsistency precluded a finding that the plaintiff exercised diligence in discovering the basis for its claims
• noting that “in most engagements of professional services,” there is “a disparity of knowledge”
• rejecting “Knight’s belated recharacterization” of underfunding of retirement plan as unavailing inasmuch as Knight “had the ability” to discover the underfunding
• explaining how the problem \was brought to the attention of [the company] by its accountant\
• ‘“[t]here were only two possible villains in the piece, Watson Wyatt or Knight itself, and no stroke of genius on Knight’s part was needed to point the finger at Watson Wyatt’ ”
• “Although Watson Wyatt’s work contributed information necessary for Knight to make its decision whether and how to amend the Plan, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Watson Wyatt controlled Knight’s decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).