Allcare, Inc. v. Bork

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Consumer Fraud Act “was intended to provide redress only to consumers generally, not to businesses injured by other businesses where they are not consumers of each other’s goods or services”
• noting that “in almost every case of defamation of a business or businessman it could be alleged that the defamation caused third parties to refrain from dealing with the plaintiff and thus ... constitute[ ] commercial disparagement”
• finding the trial court implicitly denied a motion based on the transcript of a colloquy between the court and counsel
• “Defamation lies when a person’s integrity in his business or profession is attacked while commercial disparagement lies when the quality of his goods or services is attacked.”
• “[D]efamation and commercial disparagement are two distinct causes of action. Defamation lies when a person’s integrity in his business or profession is attacked while commercial disparagement lies when the quality of his goods or services is attacked.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).