Ernest P. Kline v. First Western Government Securities, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where law firm had reason to believe that the information provided to it by the company was materially different from the truth, firm could not escape liability merely by stating that its opinion was based solely on information provided to it
• holding that cautionary statements in an opinion letter were not sufficiently cautionary to preclude reliance where they suggested nothing more than the possibility that the speaker “might have gotten the law wrong or incorrectly assessed the risk that the IRS would deny deductions”
• rejecting bespeaks caution argument where purported cautionary language did not sufficiently counter alleged misstatements and omissions
• where Ernst found that IKON’s approach did not take into account all relevant factors, such as untimely billing, E & Y proposed an increase in the estimated write-off factor of 25%
• “[Encompassed within that general obligation [to speak truthfully] is also an obligation or ‘duty’ to communicate any additional or qualifying information, then known, the absence of which would render misleading that which was communicated.”
• there is a general obligation to speak truthfully

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).