context: Nor does it cite any authority suggesting rescissory damages are available under the common law without showing proximate cause. Recovery of damages typically requires a showing of proximate cause.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 148 F.3d 760, 763
citation_a.parenthetical: "The requirement of proving loss causation is a general requirement of tort law."
citation_a.sentence: See Valley Nat’l Bank v. Brown, 110 Ariz. 260, 264, 517 P.2d 1256, 1260 (1974) (“Recovery in a tort action is limited to those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant’s wrongful acts.”); see also Movitz v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 148 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir.1998) (“The requirement of proving loss causation is a general requirement of tort law.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 110 Ariz. 260, 264
citation_b.parenthetical: "Recovery in a tort action is limited to those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant's wrongful acts."
citation_b.sentence: See Valley Nat’l Bank v. Brown, 110 Ariz. 260, 264, 517 P.2d 1256, 1260 (1974) (“Recovery in a tort action is limited to those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant’s wrongful acts.”); see also Movitz v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 148 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir.1998) (“The requirement of proving loss causation is a general requirement of tort law.”).