United States v. Leipold

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a principal may be held liable for acts performed by an agent within the scope of the agency relationship
• holding complaint fell short because it did not “identify or describe” contracts allegedly breached
• dismissing breach of fuel lease claim because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege existence of lease between parties
• permitting plaintiffs to “plead alternative theories and demand relief in the alternative.”
• “[I]t is clear under extant case law that the plaintiffs may not pursue a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under [S]ection 570.10(A).” (citation omitted)
• attached oil and gas leases did not show that plaintiff and defendant were parties to lease

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).