Sullivan v. Chartwell Investment Partners, LP

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that fraud in “the inducement to contract” claims “are collateral to the performance of the contracts and therefore, are not barred by the gist-of-the-action doctrine”
• stating that “status as an at-will employee is irrelevant to whether a contract existed to provide compensation during the term of his employment.”
• stating that “status as an at-will employee is irrelevant to whether a contract existed to provide compensation during the term of his employment.”
• observing that the doctrine “would not necessarily bar a fraud claim stemming from the fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract”
• noting that “fraud in the inducement claims are much more likely to present cases in which a social policy against the fraud, external to the contractual obligations of the parties, exists”
• finding that “‘fraud in the inducement claims are much more likely to present cases in which a social policy against the fraud, external to the contractual obligations of the parties, exists”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).