Seventh Circuit· 7/30/2010

Siegel v. Shell Oil Co.

Citations

612 F.3d 932
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15753
2010 WL 2977315

How courts have described this case

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

holding that individualized inquiries regarding “why a particular plaintiff purchased a particular brand of [the product]” were necessary to establish harm to each class member under the ICFA and, thus, common issues could not predominate
holding that individualized inquiries regarding “why a particular plaintiff purchased a particular brand of [the product]” were necessary to establish harm to each class member under the ICFA and, thus, common issues could not predominate
noting that proximate cause under the ICFA is present where the defendant's conduct led the plaintiff to make inflated payments
noting that proximate cause under the ICFA is present where the defendant’s conduct led the plaintiff to make inflated payments
suggesting that a plaintiff who paid “too much” due to an ICFA violation may also claim unjust enrichment
noting that summary judgment is the “put up or shut up” moment in a lawsuit where Plaintiff must produce evidence to support his allegations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bauer, Sykes, Griesbach

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Siegel v. Shell Oil Co.

3 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.