Monahan v. O'Byrne

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s allegation that she “would not have purchased” the prescription drug Neurontin “absent defendant’s deceptive practices” was insufficient to set forth a cognizable injury
• rejecting argument that consumer who bought product he would not have purchased absent seller’s deceptive commercial practices suffered injury within meaning of Section 349
• rejecting “claim that any off-label prescription of Neurontin was potentially dangerous [because it] asserts a harm that is merely speculative”
• finding no cognizable injury where plaintiff alleged “she would not have purchased the drug absent defendant’s deceptive practices”
• affirming dismissal of claim of plaintiff seeking “a refund of the purchase price of Neurontin on the ground that she would not have purchased the drug absent defendant’s deceptive practices”
• rejecting argument that consumer suffered actual injury within meaning of section 349 where he alleged he bought product he would not have purchased absent seller’s deceptive commercial practices

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).