Siegel v. Shell Oil Co.

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).