Kling v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, 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 a trade practice does not cause a substantial injury under CUTPA if a consumer could have reasonably avoided it
• holding that a trade practice does not cause a substantial injury under CUTPA if a consumer could have reasonably avoided it
• holding that CUT-PA addresses practices that “offend[ ] public policy”; are “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous”; and cause “substantial injury to consumers” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that there is no CUTPA violation when the sole basis of the claim is the defendant’s negligence and the jury determines that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent
• holding that CUT-PA addresses practices that “offend[ ] public policy”; are “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous”; and cause “substantial injury to consumers” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that conduct that “occurred during business hours . . . is not sufficient to support the conclusion that [the employee] was acting within the scope of [his] employment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).