Randolph v. ING LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CO.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim given the “absence of allegations of present injury”
• recognizing that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is cognizable under D.C. law
• recognizing that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is cognizable under D.C. law
• \[S]tanding is a question of law which we consider on appeal de novo .\ (quotation marks omitted)
• “Speculative harm, or the threat of future harm ... not yet realized does not suffice to create a cause of action ... ”
• public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652B, 652D)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).