Bradford v. Vento

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “business managers must have latitude to exercise their rights in a permissible way in order to properly manage their business, even though it may not always be pleasant for those involved.”
• holding that if no objection to jury charge is made, then sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed in the light of submitted charge
• holding that, “[a]s a general rule, a failure to disclose information does not constitute fraud unless there is'a duty to disclose the information” and noting “we have never adopted section 551” of the Restatement.(Second
• concluding that “[t]here is no evidence that [the defendant] was intending to prevent [the plaintiff] from dealing with prospective future customers” when 44 providing law enforcement information about a store
• holding that proving unconscionable conduct under the DTPA involves a showing that the defendant took advantage of the consumer’s lack of knowledge and “that the resulting unfairness was glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete, and unmitigated”
• adding that an unconscionable act under the DTPA is one that is A glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete and unmitigated @

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).