Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “a large company is generally more sophisticated than individual consumers”
• noting the deceptive trade practice requirement can be met by showing the “false representation had the capacity or tendency to deceive, even if it did not”(emphasis added)
• finding no significant public impact, in part because the claim was more akin to a private breach of contract, and “Snyder was represented by counsel in negotiations with Rhino and Schaefer 33 was relatively sophisticated in his education and knowledge of the business”
• “[I]f a wrong is private in nature, and does not affect the public, a claim is not actionable under the CCPA.”
• “Three affected dealers out of approximately 550 worldwide does not significantly affect the public . . . .”
• Count X - Private cause of action under the CCPA requires that Plaintiffs allege: (1) that [MIC] engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (2) that the challenged practice occurred in the course of [MIC’s] business, vocation, or occupation; (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).