Richard C. Powers v. Boston Cooper Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that eonclusory allegations of fraud which lack specifics are too vague
• A] ‘fraud count [that] is almost wholly conclusory, and ... lacking in specifics.... is too vague to meet the Rule 9(b) benchmark.’”
• the “pleading was totally deficient in this respect… a fraud count that is almost wholly conclusory, and lacking in specifics is too vague to meet the Rule 9(b) benchmark.”(Internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The Supreme Judicial Court has consistently stated that oral contracts for a term of years are proscribed by the statute of frauds because, by definition, they cannot be performed within a year”
• “The Supreme Judicial Court has consistently stated that oral contracts for a term of years are proscribed by the statute of frauds because, by definition, they cannot be performed within a year”
• discussing specificity required in pleading fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).