Bank of Dade v. Reeves

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when “parties entered into a contract the consideration of which was a mutual exchange of promises . . . [that] were bargained for,” promissory estoppel “is not present”
• \These parties entered into a contract the consideration of which was a mutual exchange of promises. The promises exchanged were bargained for. Promissory estoppel is not present.\
• “These parties entered into a contract the consideration of which was a mutual exchange of promises. The promises exchanged were bargained for. Promissory estoppel is not present.”
• “These parties entered into a contract the consideration of which was a mutual exchange of promises. The promises exchanged were bargained for. Promissory estoppel is not present.”
• promissory estoppel not present where a contract governs the relationship between the parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).