Morere v. Preston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding replaceable filter design not a feasible alternative to a permanent filter
• rejecting a proposed feasible alternative design where “the design and purpose of the[] two products is different”
• searching for allegations containing “underlying factual details concerning when, where[,] and how such reliance arose”
• applying New York law to find that “a permanent filter[] is not comparable to a retrievable filter, since the design and purpose of these two products is different”
• dismissing an express warranty claim where “the Complaint is devoid of any facts that would permit the inference that Plaintiff actually read statements and directly relied upon them when making the decision to utilize Defendant's product”
• dismissing express warranty claim where “complaint is “devoid of any facts that would permit the inference that [the p]laintiff actually read these statements and directly relied upon them when making the decision to utilize [the d]efendant’s product”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).