Carr v. Bankers Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court “must examine the evidence to determine if a rational fact finder could conclude that malice had been established by clear-and-convincing evidence”
• noting that plaintiff must prove falsity and malice by clear and convincing evidence
• noting that in Holsapple “the claimants were specifically identified and the extent of their interest was known [and that t]he claimants were undisputably the objects of the clients’ donative intent”
• noting that in Holsapple “the claimants were specifically identified and the extent of their interest was known [and that t]he claimants were undisputably the objects of the clients’ donative intent”
• noting “[c]redibility 9 determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are” for juries, not judges deciding motions for summary judgment (citation omitted)
• action by individual trustees of Iowa Trust against Bankers Trust and Davis law firm for negligence and defamation arising from loss of trust funds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).