Amicus Briefs

July 12, 2004 | Filed under: Class Actions
Court:
Illinois Supreme Court

This brief holds that class actions are an indispensable procedural device in cases involving relatively small money damages for large numbers of people, and the unsupported contention that class actions harm consumers by increasing the costs of goods and services has no basis in fact. This brief was written by Steve Gardner, Law Offices of Stephen Gardner, PC, Leslie Brueckner, Paul Bland, and Arthur Bryant, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and Eugene Pavalon, Pavalon, Gifford, Laatsch and Marino.
 

May 1, 2004 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Statutory Damages, Truth in Lending Act
Court:
US Supreme Court

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is intended to benefit the economy and consumers by promoting the informed use of credit. The deceptive sales techniques used by Koons against Mr. Nigh are recurring practices for businesses who refuse to compete openly and fairly in the marketplace. This Amicus Brief was written by Richard J. Rubin, Carolyn L. Carter, Joanne S. Faulkner, Thomas Dean Domonoske.

April 22, 2004 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Payday Lending
Court:
US District Court - Northern District of Georgia

"The fringe banking industry exploits vulnerable consumers who must rely on state regulation. Lenders relationships with out-of-state banks are just the latest in a history of attempts to evade interests caps.” This Amicus Brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman and Michael Schuster of AARP Foundation, Gary Leshaw and Leigh Altman of Gary Leshaw and Associates, and Ashley Carraway of Atlanta Legal Aid Society.
 

April 12, 2004 | Filed under: Forced Arbitration
Court:
California Supreme Court

“The imposition of unreasonable costs renders an arbitration clause unenforceable.” This Amicus Brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman and Michael Schuster of AARP Foundation, and Nancy Barron of Kenmitzer, Anderson, Barron and Ogilvie.
 

January 1, 2004 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Reliance, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
Court:
Minnesota Supreme Court

Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc. A misrepresentation or deceptive act can cause harm to consumers as contemplated by the private Attorney General Statute, despite the presence of written disclaimers.
 

June 1, 2003 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: False Advertising
Court:
US Supreme Court

Nike, Inc., et al., v. Marc Kasky, Case # 02-575 in the Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. California's broad standing provision for consumer protection actions is not facially unconstitutional, and the California Court properly found that at least some of Nike's statements were "commercial speech."
 

May 27, 2003 | Filed under: Mortgage, Real Estate & Housing | Tagged with: Class Certification, RESPA
Court:
US Supreme Court

In the matter of Case #02-1432 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Daniel Heimmermann and Emily Heimmermann v. First Union Mortgage Corp., and Beth A. Richardson, and Pamela C. Hirsch and David L. Hirsch v. BankAmerica Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Bank of America FSB, A Hawaii Corporation, BankAmerica Mortgage, A Division of BankAmerica FSB, A Hawaii Corporation.
 

January 1, 1998 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Standing, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
Court:
US Supreme Court

NACA filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States, supporting Marc Kasky's 1998 filing alleging that petitioner Nike, Inc. made false or misleading assertions of fact concerning the working conditions in overseas facilities where Nike's products are manufactured.
 

| Filed under: Credit Reporting
Court:
California Supreme Court

Amicus Curiae Brief Requesting a Republish of Connor vs First Student. 

| Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Deception, False Advertising
Court:
Minnesota Supreme Court

This Court should overturn the “public benefit” restriction created in Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000). That decision required private plaintiffs to demonstrate that the alleged deceptive conduct was broadly disseminated and required dismissal of statutory fraud violations that arise solely in a “one-on-one transaction.” Id. at 314. The public benefit restriction has effectively ended private actions under statutory fraud laws for individuals, farmers and other small business purchasers subject to marketplace deception.

Pages