Malenko v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding defendant's misrepresentation that it was presently able to produce specific quantity of product was not merely a promise of future action
• noting that allegations that were “merely promises of future action” cannot sustain fraud claims
• finding “intrinsically [ ] more intimate association” than ordinary business relationship between parties because defendant required plaintiffs to form new company with solid capitalization before parties could enter distributorship agreement
• denial of motion to dismiss upheld in part on basis that misrepresentations were not promissory but factual
• defendant's representations \concerning the state of its research and testing\ were \representations of fact and not merely promises of future action\ that induced plaintiff to enter into agreement, and \[a]llegations of this character are sufficient to sustain a fraud claim\
• sales contract involving an ongoing distributorship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).