Legal Opinion

Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. PER AARSLEFF A/S

District Court, W.D. Tennessee

Decided February 22, 2008No. 05-2414 JPM/dkvPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD CLAIMS AND REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

JON PHIPPS McCALLA, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants Per Aar-sleff A/S, Aarsleff Rorteknik AB, and Aar-sleff OY’s (collectively, “Per Aarsleff”) Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claims and Request for Punitive Damages Contained in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 117), filed August 24, 2007. Plaintiffs Insi-tuform Technologies, Inc. and INA Acquisition Corp. (collectively, “Insituform”) responded in opposition on September 24, 2007 (Doc. 118). Per…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Stephenson v. Capano Development, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1983
  5. Hataway v. McKinleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1992

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. FutureSelect Portfolio Management, Inc. v. Tremont Group Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. Futureselect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., Apps. v. Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., Resps.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  3. Kines v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2020
  4. Selby v. SchroederDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2021
  5. Selby v. SchroederDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API