Vinson v. Aarp Foundation

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the record supported the finding that Monts was “able to compel WDG to distribute corporate assets to himself and other corporations that he owned” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that certain claims “assert the company’s own rights” while others may not
• holding an argument forfeited because a party did not “further develop it . . . after [a] single, conclusory statement” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding no abuse of discretion in district court relying on a declaration “for some factual analyses” and disregarding “legal conclusions and other deficiencies”
• concluding an argument was - 25 - “forfeit” because the party that had advanced it did “not further develop it (or even mention it again) after * * * [a] ‘single, conclusory statement’” (quoting Bryant v. Gates, 532 F.3d 888, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2008))
• declining to decide whether, after Lexmark , the limitations on third-party standing are prudential

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).