Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no evidence of a misstatement of existing fact that would allow recovery for negligent misrepresentation
• holding that promise to supply A whatever equipment @ was needed to start a plant with no definite promise of specific items of equipment would not support promissory estoppel claim
• holding defendant’s representations that it would provide plaintiff the equipment needed to start a plant and pay plaintiff a salary while starting the plant did not support negligent misrepresentation claim because they were not misrepresentations of existing fact
• stating that misstatement of existing fact is required for negligent-misrepresentation liability
• holding defendant’s representations that it would provide plaintiff the equipment needed to start a plant and pay plaintiff a salary while starting the plant did not support negligent misrepresentation claim because they were not misrepresentations of existing fact
• rejecting negligent misrepresentation claim where defendant terminated plaintiff but promised to provide plaintiff all necessary equipment to start a new plant and continue paying plaintiff his salary for the year that it would take him to start the plant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).