Mazzara v. U. S. Gypsum Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that motion to amend may be denied as futile where claims barred by statute of limitations
• stating that under Section 14(a) a plaintiff must demonstrate both transaction causation and loss causation
• affirming the district court’s denial' of plaintiffs’ Rule 15(d) motion using law and analysis regarding Rule 15(a) motions
• defining “loss causation” as the fact “that the misrepresentations or omissions caused the economic harm”
• defining “transaction causation” as the fact “that the violations in question caused the [plaintiff] to engage in the transaction in question”
• applying Mills and Va. Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991), to § 10(b) claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).