Montana Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Montana Dakota Utilities Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a “plaintiff need not demonstrate actual reliance in order to prove causation,” but instead “that 52 the alleged practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances.”
• denying class where plaintiff had “not demonstrated that an objectively reasonable consumer would agree with her interpretation of ‘all natural’ ”
• finding an action was not moot because the defendant did not show it would not resume the disputed conduct, despite declaring it had no intention of doing so
• declining to certify class under Rule 23(b)(2) because the plaintiff “made no effort to demonstrate that the money damages, which appear to be the primary remedy sought, are merely incidental to the injunctive relief” (emphasis in original)
• conclusory statements are insufficient to meet the burden of proof on a motion for class certification
• because “certain products did not bear the challenged labelling” and some products “did not contain the alleged misrepresentation during the entire class period,” it resulted in “factual discrepancies creat[ing] individualized factual issues”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).