Patrick v. Summers

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the evidence of mere failure to perform a contractual obligation “is insufficient as a matter of law to show ... [an] intent to defraud at the time ... the promise [was made]”
• holding that the evidence of mere failure to perform a contractual obligation \is insufficient as a matter of law to show . . . [an] intent to defraud at the time . . . the promise [was made]\
• stating that fraud cannot be predicated on statements of future events
• denying fraud claim absent sufficient proof that defendant had intent to defraud at time he promised to purchase plaintiff’s property
• setting aside jury verdict and holding that plaintiffs’ evidence as to falsity of broker’s promise to purchase home failed to meet “the increased proof the law requires to establish fraud”
• applying the exception to defendant’s promise to perform in the future; determining exception not met for lack of clear and cogent evidence of defendant’s intent not to perform

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).