Mihalcik v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau
Mihalcik v. Ill. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 479 U.S. 1087 (1987)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that even though Indiana law allows a duty, franchisor had no duty to disclose sale of the corporation to franchisees)
-
(noting that statements about the future of the franchise are “puffing” and are not actionable)
-
(“[i]n a sales or marketing context, and franchisor-franchisee negotiations certainly are to be placed in that context, such expressions of opinion are known as ‘puffing,’ ‘trade talk,’ or ‘sales talk’ and do not constitute actionable fraud”)
-
(where (1) plan provided that employer could approve actuarial factors from time to time, (2) employer approved certain actuarial factors pursuant to the plan provision, and (3) employer later approved new factors, latter action was not an amendment of the plan)
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.