Skip to main content

Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

Citations

  • 171 Wash. 2d 260

How courts have described this case

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

  • emphasizing that reliance is not necessarily essential to establishing causation under the CPA
  • noting that Washington courts “generally enforce contract choice of law provisions”
  • rejecting contention that courts do not need to look to extrinsic evidence to interpret standardized consumer contracts
  • explaining what establishes a practice is unfair or deceptive 7 as a matter of law before turning to a causation analysis
  • guoting Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 82, 170 P.3d 10 (2007)
  • “but for’’proximate causation applies to a CPA claim “based on an affirmative misrepresentation’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alexander, Chambers, Fairhurst, Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Sanders, Stephens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

81 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.