Sprenger v. Trout

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the CFA applied to the \business of customizing and refabricating automobiles\
• declining to apply the unclean hands doctrine where plaintiff's alleged wrong was against his employer, not against defendants
• rejecting “roadworthiness” limitation and noting that “[c]ourts have consistently rejected creative attempts to narrow the scope of the [statute] by technical definitions and artificial distinctions”
• rejecting “roadworthiness” limitation and noting that “[c]ourts have consistently rejected creative attempts to narrow the scope of the [statute] by technical definitions and artificial distinctions”
• declining to apply the unclean hands doctrine where plaintiff's alleged wrong was against his employer, not defendants whom he hired to repair and customize his vehicle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).