Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2019Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. 2011) (In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, "[m]aterial means a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question." (quoting Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)); lnkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 945 A.2d 855, 859 (Vt. 2(>08) (Under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, a material fact is one that "a reasonable person would regard as important in making a decision."). 2019Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. 2011) (In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, "[m]aterial means a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question." (quoting Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)); lnkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 945 A.2d 855, 859 (Vt. 2(>08) (Under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, a material fact is one that "a reasonable person would regard as important in making a decision."). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc.green2 sentences2019Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. 2011) (In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, "[m]aterial means a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question." (quoting Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)); lnkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 945 A.2d 855, 859 (Vt. 2(>08) (Under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, a material fact is one that "a reasonable person would regard as important in making a decision."). 2019Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. 2011) (In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, "[m]aterial means a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question." (quoting Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)); lnkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 945 A.2d 855, 859 (Vt. 2(>08) (Under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, a material fact is one that "a reasonable person would regard as important in making a decision."). | 2 | 2 |
Inkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc.green2 sentences2019Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. 2011) (In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, "[m]aterial means a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question." (quoting Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)); lnkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 945 A.2d 855, 859 (Vt. 2(>08) (Under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, a material fact is one that "a reasonable person would regard as important in making a decision."). 2019Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. 2011) (In a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, "[m]aterial means a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question." (quoting Smith v. KNC Optical, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)); lnkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 945 A.2d 855, 859 (Vt. 2(>08) (Under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, a material fact is one that "a reasonable person would regard as important in making a decision."). | 2 | 2 |
Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 447 , 956 P.2d 1382, 1386 (1998) (setting forth the elements for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim). 2014See Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 447 , 956 P.2d 1382, 1386 (1998) (setting forth the elements for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim). | 2 | 2 |
Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bellgreen2 sentences2014Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (stating the elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim). 2014Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (stating the elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.