Aurora Firefighter's Credit Union v. Harvey

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 did not apply pursuant to section 10b(1)'s exemption because the credit union's failure to make disclosures to the defendant, who was only a secondary and not primary obligor on the loan, complied with TILA's disclosure requirements
• holding that the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply pursuant to section 10b(1)’s exemption because the credit union’s failure to make disclosures to the defendant, who was only a secondary and not primary obligor on the loan, complied with TILA’s disclosure requirements
• holding that the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply pursuant to section 10b(1)’s exemption because the credit union’s failure to make disclosures to the defendant, who was only a secondary and not primary obligor on the loan, complied with TILA’s disclosure requirements
• finding the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply pursuant to section 10b(1)’s exemption, where the failure to make certain disclosures complied with the relevant disclosure requirements
• finding the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply pursuant to section 10b(1)’s exemption, where the failure to make certain disclosures complied with the relevant disclosure requirements
• there was no violation of the Consumer Fraud Act because the credit union’s disclosure complied with the Truth in Lending Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).