Greenwald v. Odom

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a “merger clause does not apply just to the parties to the contract”
• “[M]ere opinions, predictions, and conjectures relating to future events cannot form the basis of a fraud claim.”
• “[N]egligent misrepresentation requires proof of (1) the defendant’s negligent supply 21 prevail on those claims as a matter of law. Under the circumstances presented, we disagree. (a
• “[a] fact is material if its existence or nonexistence is a matter to which a reasonable man would attach importance in determining his choice or action in the transaction in question”
• “[a] fact is material if its existence or nonexistence is a matter to which a reasonable man would attach importance in determining his choice or action in the transaction in question”
• “[N]egligent misrepresentation requires proof of (1) the defendant’s negligent supply of false information to foreseeable persons, known or unknown; (2) such persons’ reasonable reliance upon that false information; and (3) economic injury proximately resulting from such reliance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).