Kramer v. Pollock-Krasner Foundation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding intentional interference with prospective contractual relations claims “must specify some particular, existing business relationship through which plaintiff would have done business but for the allegedly tortious behavior”
• dismissing claim because “the defendants’ allegedly conspiratorial actions could equally have been prompted by lawful, independent goals which do not constitute a conspiracy”
• dismissing tortious interference claim where plaintiff alleged interference with potential contracts with “galleries”, “dealers” and “unnamed individuals and entities” without identifying any of them specifically
• dismissing unjust enrichment claim predicated on allegations of “illegal, anticompetitive conduct” where underlying allegations ultimately failed to support claims under the Sherman and Donnelly Acts
• dismissing an unjust enrichment claim because it “‘hinges on . . . practices claimed by plaintiff to be illegal’ . . . [but] the allegations of illegality in the complaint fail” (first alteration in original
• while the plaintiff “may believe the defendants conspired ... , the defendants’ allegedly conspiratorial ac tions could equally have been prompted by lawful, independent goals which do not constitute a conspiracy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).