Koch v. ACKER, MERRALL & CONDIT COMPANY

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disclaimers set forth in defendant’s catalogs did not establish a defense at the 12(b)(6) stage
• explaining that the plaintiff must allege that he “suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice,” but that “[j]ustifiable reliance . . . is not an element of the statutory claim”
• “[Disclaimers set forth in defendant’s catalogs do not bar claims for deceptive trade practices.”
• “To the extent that the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims, it was error. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff is not an element of the statutory claim.”
• “To the extent that the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims, it was error. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff is not an element of the statutory claim.”
• “To the extent that the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims, it was error. Justifiable reliance by the Plaintiff [on the misrepresentation or omission] is not an element of the statutory claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).