LiMandri v. Judkins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the same conduct could not be a basis for both a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with contract
• holding that an attorney’s “duty of undivided loyalty to [the] client superseded any duty on [attorney’s] part to disclose information to” another party
• noting that the plaintiff must allege the presence of one of the LiMandri factors: that (1) defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with plaintiff; (2
• “[A] duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between ... parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement.”
• “In Falk, the Northern District of California found that concealment or a failure to disclose can constitute actionable fraud under the CLRA in four situations: (1
• there is a duty to 11 disclose “when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material 12 facts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).