Kane v. NVR, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. KnowledgeLake, Inc. v. PFU Am. Grp. Mgmt.

    Civil Action 20-425 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2021)

    21 Kane v. NVR, Inc., 2020 WL 3027239, at *4 (Del. Ch. June 5, 2020) (citing Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525 A.2d 146, 149 (Del. 1987)).

  2. State ex rel. Jennings v. Monsanto Co.

    299 A.3d 372 (Del. 2023)   Cited 16 times
    Explaining that, traditionally, an unjust enrichment claim requires a showing that no adequate remedy exists at law, but "unjust enrichment is historically a legal, not an equitable, claim" thus "absence of an adequate remedy at law is required only if an unjust enrichment claim is brought in the Court of Chancery and there is no other independent basis for equitable jurisdiction"

    The State relies on Kane v. NVR, Inc. , 2020 WL 3027239 (Del. Ch. June 5, 2020), an order on exceptions to a Master's Report. In Kane , however, the court did not discuss the exclusive possession requirement.

  3. Beyond Risk Topco Holdings v. Chandler

    C. A. N24C-01-221-EMD CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 24, 2024)

    Opp'n MTD CC at 27 (citing Countercls ΒΆΒΆ 51-52, 106). Id. (citing Kane v. NVR, Inc., 2020 WL 3027239, at *6 (Del. Ch. June 5, 2020) ("inferring representation false when made from 'proximity of only 11 days' between representation and breach"); and In re P3 Health grp. Holdings, LLC, 2022 WL 15035833, at *5 (Del. Ch. Oct. 26, 2022) ("pre-closing EBITDA projections immediately contradicted by negative post-closing projections supported fraud inference".).