Hall v. Romero

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim accrued by 23 November 1974, even though the breaching party had “promised to perform in the future,” 24 because such future promises “did not eradicate the fact that . . . [the breaching party] had 25 already broken its promise to perform”
• applying shorter limitations period because the court was “not in substantial doubt” about which limitations period applied
• rejecting fraud claim based on statement that “you’ll never find a better, more secure investment”
• finding no abuse of discretion when trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend after summary judgment had been entered against them
• finding no abuse of discretion when trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend after summary judgment had been entered against them
• granting summary judgment for moving party because non-moving party’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).