Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “a duty to disclose a material defect” which prevented the product from performing a “critical” function that was “central and necessary to the function” of the product
• allowing consumer-protection claims to proceed even without \defects related to safety concerns\
• “Materiality is generally a question of fact unless the fact misrepresented is so obviously unimportant that the jury could not reasonably find that a reasonable man would have been influenced by it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).