Ashland Iron & Mining Co. v. McDaniel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements about “technological sophistication ... are too far removed from any specific or absolute characteristics of its product to be actionable.” (quotation marks and alterations omitted)
• holding that plaintiff sufficiently established damages in alleging that “she would not have purchased her wireless security system but for ADT LLC’s violation of the ACFA” and continued to suffer economic loss
• stating that the ACFA “broadly prohibits fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading conduct in connection with the sale or advertisement of consumer goods and services”
• suggesting that class certification may be appropriate when dealing with a material omission about an “inherently flawed” product
• arguing that Loomis “misapprehended Arizona law” and ignored the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Horne v. AutoZone, Inc., 275 P.3d 1278, 1281 (Ariz. 2012)
• explaining the ACFA’s prohibition against “fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading conduct in connection with the sale or advertisement of consumer goods and services” requires plaintiffs to sufficiently allege the misrepresentation injured them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).