Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Harris Petroleum Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “[t]he defendants are correct” the Nevada statute grants causes of action to elderly or disabled people only
• finding that the “allegations present no facts that would connect injuries specific to the plaintiffs, as opposed to injuries against competitors and purchasers nationwide, to any cause arising in states where no named plaintiff is located ... ”
• adjudicating class-oriented standing questions at the pleading stage, explaining that it declined to “indulge in the prolonged and expensive implications of the plaintiffs’ position only to be faced with the same problem months down the road”
• “Finally, because the plaintiffs’ third count for unjust enrichment refers to no law or jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under that count.”
• “The fact that plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class is strong evidence that their interests are not antagonistic to those of the class; the same strategies that will vindicate plaintiffs’ claims will vindicate those of the class.”
• “[T]he amended complaint alleges that certain of the named plaintiffs were injured in art through reimbursements for purchases of overpriced drugs sold in the state of Florida. This suffices to state a claim under the FDUTPA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).