Bosworth v. Shuck

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that individual issues of fact would make class certification inappropriate because “a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim requires each class member to prove that the alleged unmerchantable condition was a proximate cause of her damages.”
• dismissing ADTPA claim based on allegations that “are conclusory and do not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements”
• dismissing ADTPA claim because plaintiff’s “conclusory” allegations did “not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements”
• “Defendants’ liability for unjust enrichment to a particular plaintiff depends on the factual circumstances of the particular purchase at issue.”
• “Defendants' liability for unjust enrichment to a particular plaintiff depends on the factual circumstances of the particular purchase at issue.”
• applying Rule 9(b) to an ADTPA claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).