Catrett v. Landmark Dodge, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an injury alleged caused by a past misrepresentation could not be remedied through Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which only provides injunctive relief
• noting that to fall under the GFBPA, the deceptive activity must take place in the consumer marketplace
• affirming dismissal of GUDTPA claim because plaintiffs, who did not allege that they were likely to be damaged in the future, failed to establish standing
• granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's GUDTPA claim involving misrepresentations about quality of vehicle where \[d]amage allegedly caused by the 1999 misrepresentation cannot be remedied through an injunction\
• granting summary judgment on plaintiff's GUDTPA claim where plaintiff had \not presented any evidence-or even alleged-that he '[was] likely to be damaged' by [defendant's deceptive] trade practices in the future\
• affirming grant of summary judgment on a GDTPA claim, explaining that injunctive relief is the only remedy permitted by the GDTPA, and noting that by definition injunctive relief provides relief from future wrongdoing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).