Lea v. Terry

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s product from a retailer on the grounds that the defendant did not receive a benefit from the plaintiff
• “Because the statute prohibits only assertion[s], representation[s] or statement[s], it does not prohibit omissions.” (citing Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1)); Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 677 N.W.2d 233, 245 (Wis. 2004
• “[T]he notice requirement is individualized . . . In a class action, the question whether a given class member provided reasonably timely notice would be particular to that individual, and would presumably require that each plaintiff actually have provided notice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).