Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that those who “knew the truth” do not have valid ICFA claims because they cannot claim to have been deceived
• dismissing consumer protection claim based on theory that defendants’ advertisements “artificially inflated” price of gasoline because plaintiff had not alleged that he was actually deceived
• analyzing claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
• analyzing claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
• “[A] private cause of action brought under section 10a(a) requires proof of ‘actual damage.’ Further, a private cause of action brought under section 10a(a
• plaintiff did not see allegedly deceptive advertising and did not allege that advertisements induced him to buy defective product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-02-09· cited 37×
• Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-02-09