Brashear v. Hazard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “overpayment theory” satisfied Lujan because plaintiff “paid a premium for a ‘clean diesel’ vehicle which actually polluted at levels dramatically higher than a reasonable consumer would expect”
• explaining that “Plaintiffs will not be required to prove that the engine component which is the source of the harm meets the EPA’s definition of an illegal defeat device” to succeed on fraudulent concealment and consumer protection claims
• \The gravamen of [plaintiffs'] state law claims is that they purchased a vehicle which polluted at levels far greater than a reasonable consumer would expect.\
• plaintiffs alleged “they paid a premium for a ‘clean diesel’ vehicles which actually polluted at levels dramatically higher than a reasonable consumer would expect”
• plaintiffs allege they received “a defective vehicle at the time of purchase” and were “then defrauded [by a] misleading software update” (emphasis added)
• “Plaintiffs’ allegation that Bosch was intimately involved in the creation of the component which caused the overpayment suffices to establish Article III standing” where Bosch was involved in marketing “clean diesel” in the United States

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).