Vandeputte v. Soderholm

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, in fraud claims, the false representation must be the proximate cause of the injury
• noting that, in fraud claims, the false representation must be the proximate cause of the injury
• providing that a promissory fraud requires an affirmative showing “that the promisor had no intention to perform at the time the promise was made”
• stating a representation as to future acts is not actionable unless the promisor had no intention to perform at the time the promise was made
• “[T]he determination of the reasonable value of legal services involves a question of fact to be answered in the light of the peculiar circumstances of each individual case.” (quotation omitted)
• “It is a well-settled rule that a representation or expectation as to future acts is not a sufficient basis to support an action for fraud merely because the represented act or event did not take place.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).