Snowder v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the DCCPPA did not apply because the District of Columbia was not a “merchant” with respect to towing and storage services in part because it did not “receive any remuneration . . . for the towing and storage services provided[.]”
• observing that the CPPA “was designed to police trade practices arising only out of consumer-merchant relationships” (quoting Howard v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, 432 A.2d 701, 709 (D.C. 1981))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).