Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Consumer Fraud Act is limited to conduct that defrauds or deceives consumers or others and that “[t]o construe the Consumer Fraud Act to give a cause of action for discriminatory pricing that the legislature refused to give under the Antitrust Act would be incongruous.”
• consumers can bring a consumer fraud claim when conduct is actionable under the Illinois Antitrust Act
• consumers can bring a consumer fraud claim when conduct is actionable under the Illinois Antitrust Act
• consumers can bring a consumer fraud claim when conduct is actionable under the Illinois Antitrust Act
• “To construe the Consumer Fraud Act to give a cause of action for discriminatory pricing that the legislature refused to give under the Antitrust Act would be incongruous.”
• CFA prohibits merchants from engaging in false, misleading, or fraudulent acts in their transactions with their customers, relating to the purchase of good or services

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1987-10-21· cited 3×