Popp v. Cash Station, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to impose duty on automatic banking machine operator to inform customers that no security systems are provided
• noting the purpose of the Act to “enjoin[] trade practices which confuse or deceive the consumer” and a consumer “must allege facts which would indicate that [they] are likely to be damaged in the future”
• no duty to prevent foreseeable attacks by third parties where defendant has no unique knowledge regarding possible future attacks
• “Generalized allegations of crime will not suffice to establish that future criminal attacks are foreseeable.”
• “The purpose of the DTPA is the enjoining of trade practices which confuse or deceive the consumer.”
• allegation that 1,500 to 5,000 criminal attacks occurred on ATM customers nationwide annually insufficient to make criminal attack upon the plaintiff foreseeable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).