Grynberg v. Total S.A.

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).