promissory estoppel statute of frauds

Receive alerts:
by e-mail
E-mail Your information will be added to a database with the sole purpose of serving your subscription. This database is the exclusive property of vLex Networks S.L. and will never be shared with any other company. By sending your request you accept the Data Protection Policy of vLex Networks S.L. I have read and accept the Terms of Use
via RSS

387 documents for promissory estoppel statute of frauds

- Diplomate Health Care, L.L.C. v. Coury, (Ohio 2011)
statute of frauds, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, App.R. 16(A)(7), promissory estoppel, hearsay, motion for a new trial
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Connolly v. Malkamaki, (Ohio 2002)
MISCELLANEOUS – directed verdict; promissory estoppel; statute of frauds; R.C. 1335.05; pierce the corporate veil; fraud or illegal act.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Militiev v. McGee, (Ohio 2010)
summary judgment, sale of land, statute of frauds, essential terms, definiteness, ambiguity, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, anticipatory repudiation.
- Ohio Supreme Court

- Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd., (Ohio 2007)
Off-Shore defendants were not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the trial court. Promissory estoppel can defeat a defense based on the statute of frauds. A fiduciary duty exist regardless of the existence of an express contract.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Kiser v. Williams, (Ohio 2010)
Statute of frauds, R.C. 1335.05, promissory estoppel, summary judgment.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Franco v. Kemppel Homes, Inc., (Ohio 2004)
Summary judgment - Civ.R. 56(C) - de novo - contract formation - promissory estoppel - breachof contract - statute of frauds - meeting of the minds - real estate purchase agreement - contingent
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. ACE Ltd. (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-2057
Statute of frauds Promissory estoppel Damages The breach of a promise to sign an agreement does not remove the agreement from the signing requirement of the statute of frauds A party may not use promissory estoppel to bar the opposing party from asserting the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds, which requires that an enforceable contract be in writing and signed by the party to be charged Damages for promissory estoppel are an adequate remedy for the breach of an oral promise, absent a signed agreement A joint-venture agreement that does not comply with the statute of frauds is unenforceable, and an unenforceable joint-venture agreement cannot impose any fiduciary duties on the parties.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Greenbelt Ventures, LLC v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (4th Cir. 2012)
... prospective advantage, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. O... of the JDA constituted exceptions to the Statute of Frauds. WMATA moved for reconsiderat...
- Federal Circuits
- Seaman v. Fannie Mae, (Ohio 2009)
MOTION TO DISMISS FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; BREACH OF CONTRACT; STATUTE OF FRAUDS; PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Landskroner v. Landskroner, (Ohio 2003)
Breach of contract; statute of frauds; professional corporation; assignment of membership units; promissory estoppel; unjust enrichment; pleading deficiencies.
- Ohio Supreme Court