Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc.

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 circumstances of fraud include “the identity of the person who made the misrepresentation, the time, place and content of the misrepresentation”
• concluding that the lower court 3 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ conduct offends public policy as established by 23 Ill. Admin. Code § 1030.60(b)(12
• explaining that “a cause of action for unfair practices under the Consumer Fraud Act need only meet the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a)”
• indicating that Rule 9(b) does not apply to a purely unfair practices claim
• affirming dismissal of fraud claims based on “failfure] to plead with particularity the who, when[,] and how of the alleged frauds”
• finding that “[b]ecause neither fraud nor mistake is an element of unfair conduct under Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act, a cause of action for unfair practices under the Consumer Fraud Act need only meet the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).