Forbes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the time and money spent monitoring credit does not establish damages since the expenditure “was not the result of any present injury, but rather the anticipation of future injury that has not materialized”
• granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on lost-data plaintiffs breach of contract claim under Minnesota law
• granting summary judgment because the evidence failed to show that “the information on the stolen computers has been accessed or misused”
• applying Minnesota law and denying damages consisting of \time and money ... spent monitoring ... credit” because \a plaintiff can only recover for loss of time in terms of earning capacity or wages”
• rejecting plaintiffs' contention for both negligence and breach-of-contract claims \that the time and money they have spent monitoring their credit suffices to establish damages\ in \anticipation of future injury that has not materialized\
• rejecting plaintiffs’ contention for both negligence and breach-of-contract claims “that the time and money they have spent monitoring their credit suffices to establish damages” in “anticipation of future injury that has not materialized”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).