Sanders v. Looney

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 question of the plaintiffs’ exercise of proper diligence was for the jury and noting that the existence of a confidential relationship may justify the plaintiffs’ reliance on representations and excuse the failure to make their own determination
• “Ordinarily, questions of whether the plaintiff could have protected himself by the exercise of proper diligence are, except in plain and indisputable cases, questions for the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).