Caulfield v. Stark

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that whether “unintentional misrepresentation[s]” are actionable “under the CPPA is still an open question”
• “[W]e need not adopt a formulation, such as Dorn II’s entrepreneurial nexus requirement – or any other – at this time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).