Tenth Circuit· 8/26/2008

Grynberg v. Total S.A.

Citations

538 F.3d 1336
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18229
2008 WL 3906535

How courts have described this case

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

noting that there is no practical difference between a tort claim for breach of fiduciary duty and an unjust enrichment claim in which the enrichment is claimed to be unjust because it was accomplished through a breach of fiduciary duty
determining when plaintiff should have known of factual basis for claim by considering when pertinent facts were disclosed in business publications
finding that plaintiffs fraudulent-concealment allegations were not preserved for appeal
distinguishing Maughan because the plaintiff in Grynberg had not faced “similar scientific uncertainty or lack of expertise”
declining to consider argument on appeal raised for first time in Rule 59(e) motion
“Because the parties’ arguments assume that Colorado law applies, we will proceed under the same assumption.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hartz, McKay, Tymkovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.