McClung v. Wal-Mart

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff’s complaints about customer service were noncognizable under the DTPA and, at most, only incidental to his purchase of goods
• finding that a customer’s purchase of a cell phone did not support a DTPA claim where his claimed injury was false imprisonment related to the store’s failure to remove a security sensor, not a complaint about the quality of the phone
• “Plaintiff’s claims arise out of post-transaction conduct wholly unrelated to the quality or suitability of the goods he purchased.”
• “this [detention] is the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).