Hill v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing because plaintiff failed to describe “how she came to rely on” defendant’s misrepresentations
• distinguishing between cases of fraudulent concealment based on omissions where a relaxed Rule 9(b) standard is used, and cases where fraud is predicated on a partial statement of fact which presumably can be stated with particularity by Plaintiff, thereby evoking the normal 9(b) standard
• stating fraudulent concealment plaintiff claiming reliance on fragmentary statements of fact must specify “(1) the partial and fragmentary statements of fact that created a duty for [the defendant] to speak, (2) who made the statements, (3) when the statements were made, and (4
• “Because [plaintiff] asserts her reliance on the fraudulent concealment, [plaintiff] has also alleged sufficient personal damage due to the 19 conspiracy.”
• “Conspiracy is not a tort on its own, but is dependent on some underlying tort that caused injury to the plaintiff.”
• applying Rule 9(b) to a claim of fraudulent concealment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).