People Ex Rel. Peters v. Murphy-Knight

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing common law fraud claim in part because plaintiff failed to allege reliance on misrepresentations
• “[statements regarding future events are considered opinions, not statements of fact,” and therefore cannot be fraudulent
• “Even a false promise of future conduct with no current intent to fulfill that promise will not constitute fraud.”
• “[T]he fact that the representations were not made directly to the plaintiff in the first instance does not preclude an action for fraud . . . .”
• “[T]he alleged misrepresentation must be one of fact and not an expression of an opinion. Statements regarding future events are considered opinions, not statements of fact.” (citations omitted)
• “[T]he alleged misrepresentation must be one of fact and not an expression of an opinion. Statements regarding future events are considered opinions, not statements of fact.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).