Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that use of disjunctive \or\ in New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act manifests clear intent to award damages for either knowing or willful acts
• holding that New Hampshire consumer protection statute ‘‘does not contain a specific provision that allows individuals to be held liable for the acts of the ‘corporate’ entity absent application of the veil- piercing doctrine’’
• concluding that “the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ [in the damages provision of the Consumer Protection Act, see RSA 358-A:10 (2009)] manifests a clear intent to award multiple damages for either knowing or willful acts”
• finding that use of disjunctive “or” in New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act manifests clear intent to award damages for either knowing or willful acts
• finding that use of disjunctive \or\ in New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act manifests clear intent to award multiple damages for either knowing or willful acts
• emphasizing that the person liable under the CPA is the unlawful actor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).