Yan Fu v. Sessions

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “a plaintiff must identify in his or her complaint the rule or case that satisfies Section 1345.09(B)'s notice requirement.”
• dismissing an unjust enrichment claim arising out of a Florida plaintiffs purchase of a vehicle containing defective coolant tubes because there was no direct link to the manufacturer
• dismissing an unjust enrichment claim arising out of a Florida plaintiffs purchase of a vehicle containing defective coolant tubes because there was no direct link to the manufacturer
• finding it plausible that duration limitations on express warranty were unconscionable but also finding it plausible that manufacturer “had knowledge of the alleged coolant tube defect at all times relevant”
• offering four reasons for rejecting Bower: (1) Dawson properly acknowledged the similarities between the DTPA and the analogous federal statute, the Lanham Act; (2) Bower failed to even mention the Ohio appellate decision of Dawson or the Lanham Act; (3
• “This language [in Mich. Comp. Law § 445.903(l)(s) ] mirrors the test that California courts employ in interpreting California’s consumer protection statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).