How cited: Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co. · Go Syfert

Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co. (1985)

green · 19 citation events across 10 courts. Showing the 15 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Colo. Mar. 10, 2010) (citing Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F. Supp. 790, 793 (D.
holding that “allegations of deceptive trade practices under the [CCPA] are subject to Rule 9(b)’s requirement of particularity”
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Motion at 5 (citing Duran v. Clover Clubs Food Co., 616 F. Supp. 790, 793 (D.
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Colo. Mar. 10, 2010) (citing Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F. Supp. 790, 793 (D.
holding that “allegations of deceptive trade practices under the [CCPA] are subject to Rule 9(b)’s requirement of particularity”
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Colo. Mar. 1, 2013); Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F. Supp. 790, 793 (D.
Rule Authority · S.D. Ohio
Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985); Gen.
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Mar. 4, 2010); Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co. 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985).
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985) (Kane, J.).
Rule Authority · D. Kan.
See NCC Sunday Inserts, Inc. v. World Color Press, Inc., 692 F.Supp. 327, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (Connecticut consumer protection statute); Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985) (Colorado consumer protection statute). 9 .
Rule Authority · Colo.
In order to effectuate the broad remedial relief and deterrence purposes, the CCPA does not require proof of actual injury. 10 See Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985) (claiming Colorado courts interpret the CCPA as intended to protect consumers against fraud); Western Food Plan, Inc., 198 Colo, at 256, 598 P.2d at 1041 (stating “the broad legislative purpose [is] to provide prompt, economical, and readily available remedies against consumer fra…
Rule Authority · D. Colo.
Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985); In re Longhorn Securities Litigation, 573 F.Supp. 255, 263 (W.D.Okla.1983).
Cited (see also) · 10th Cir. · signal: see also
Ervin v. Amoco Oil Co., 885 P.2d 246, 254 (Colo.Ct.App.1994) (emphasis added), rev’d on other grounds, 908 P.2d 493, 502 (Colo.1995); see also Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 794 (D.Colo.1985) (rejecting the contention that the plaintiffs were required to allege that the defendant interfered with an “ongoing, specific relationship”); cf. Nat.
Cited · Bankr. D. Del. · signal: see
See Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985).
Cited · Colo. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 798 (D.Colo.1985) (CCPA claims are subject to Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement; plaintiffs satisfied rule's requirement because it only requires that claim identify cireum-stances constituting fraud and plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to apprise defendants of alleged deceptive trade practices' nature); see also Heller v. Lexton-Ancira Real Estate Fund, Ltd., 1972, 809 P.2d 1016, 1022 (Colo.App.1990) (even under Ru…
Cited (see also) · D.D.C. · signal: see also
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 884 F.Supp. 1515 , 1524 & n. 8 (D.Kan.1995) (holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed Rule 9(b) particularity requirement, which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement) (citation omitted); see also Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.Colo.1985).
green Davis v. Frapolly (1990)
Cited · N.D. Ill. · signal: see
See Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 790, 793 (D.C.Colo.1985).