White v. Mock

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the plaintiffs did not offer any proof there was mold on property at time of sale
• “Having determined that the Mocks had engaged in an act or practice which was misleading, false, or deceptive to White, in violation of the [ICPA], the jury was required to make an award of at least one thousand dollars to White.”
• “Having determined that the Mocks had engaged in an act or practice which was misleading, false, or deceptive to White, in violation of the [ICPA], the jury was required to make an award of at least one thousand dollars to White.”
• “A judgment may not be disturbed on appeal due to error in an evidentiary ruling unless the error affected the substantial rights of a party”
• “[A] jury found the Mocks did not commit fraud in the transaction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).