Pierre v. Fernald

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a party’s pretrial proposed charge was insufficient to preserve the party’s appellate complaint of omitted questions
• recognizing that the DTPA claims are generally punitive but that ”[r]esto-ration is different”
• noting that restoration is “limited to cases in which counter-restitution by the claimant will restore the defendant to the status quo ante”
• concluding that restoration under DTPA requires “mutual restoration and accounting”
• concluding party’s pretrial proposed jury charge was insufficient to preserve party’s appellate complaint of missing questions
• holding that the DTPA authorizes the remedy of rescission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).