Miracle v. Stone

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that an art gallery's \blue-chip reputation was a key element of the enormous success\ of a fraudulent enterprise to sell forged art
• collecting cases, and concluding that dismissal was “appropriate” because a party had “offered no factual or legal argument in opposition to [an opposing party]’s motion”
• dismissing fraud claims against a parent company because “the doctrine of respondeat superior does not render a parent company liable for the conduct of a subsidiary”
• dismissing fraud claims against a parent company because “the doctrine of respondeat superior does not render a parent company liable for the conduct of a subsidiary”
• dismissing fraud claims against a parent company because “the doctrine of respondeat superior does not render a parent company liable for the conduct of a subsidiary”
• finding fraud claims untimely where plaintiff alleged an art gallery did not disclose an FBI investigation and 16 The single case Plaintiffs cites in support—Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).