Duran v. Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiff failed to state an ICFA claim when the damages did not stem from the deception proved
• finding that plaintiff failed to state an ICFA claim when the damages did not stem from the deception proved
• stating that damages are a required element of a private claim and distinguishing Greenberg v. United Airlines, 206 Ill.App.3d 40, 45-46, 150 Ill.Dec. 904, 563 N.E.2d 1031, 1036 (1990), which held that damages are not an element of a public claim
• explaining -8- 2016 IL App (2d) 151053 that because innocent misrepresentations are actionable under the Act, damages will not be presumed
• “without any need to prove actual reliance it is difficult to imagine how a plaintiff who chooses not to can show *** proximate cause”
• “the materiality of the misrepresented fact is still an element of a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).