Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, 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, in order to prevail on a CFA claim, a plaintiff must present evidence of a loss that is neither hypothetical nor illusory
• holding that “plenary hearing should be conducted only when the certifications of counsel raise material factual disputes that can be resolved solely by the taking of testimony”
• explaining that damages for breach of an express warranty is “the remedy for a buyer who has accepted defective goods” (emphasis added)
• describing application of Rule 4:42-9(b) and RPC 1.5(a) as \factors [that] must inform the calculation of the reasonableness of a fee award in this and every case\
• describing application of Rule 4:42-9(b) and RPC 1.5(a) as “factors [that] must inform the calculation of the reasonableness of a fee award in this and every ease”
• affirming modified lodestar approach to fee-shifting provision in New Jersey's consumer protection statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).