Daniel v. Hines

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that \unfair\ business practice was \tethered to a legislatively declared policy\ because the pleadings \alleg[ed] violations of the TREAD Act and a Federal Safety Standard\
• explaining that a failure to provide vehicle safety information violates public policy in satisfaction of the “unfair” prong
• explaining that a plausible claim for a CLRA violation based on a fraudulent omission was enough to satisfy violation of fraudulent and unlawful prongs of UCL
• finding that an alleged headlight defect posed a safety risk that the plaintiffs would have found material and that the defendants’ knowledge of the defect was adequately pled by citing customer complaints and bulletins warranting notification under the TREAD Act.
• explaining that a plausible claim for a CLRA violation based on a fraudulent omission was enough to satisfy violation of fraudulent and unlawful prongs of UCL, and failure to provide vehicle safety information violates public policy in satisfaction of “unfair” prong
• alleging “121 detailed consumer complaints” posted 28 on government database about inadequate headlights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).