Cluster 1965207

Jun. 20, 2011) (citing Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 605 N.W.2d 136 , 141–42 (Neb. 2000) (“To be actionable under the CPA, therefore, we conclude that the unfair or deceptive act or practice must have an impact upon the public interest.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska has found that this subsection “limit[s] the disputes that fall within the ambit of § 59-1602 to unfair or deceptive acts or practices that affect the public interest.” Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000).

As the Court noted in its order addressing Werner’s Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint, “the CPA is not meant to apply to private contracts of ‘unfair or deceptive act[s] or practice[s] that affect[] only [the] parties to [a] transaction.’” Filing 40 at 13 (alteration in original) (quoting Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000)); see also Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 676 N.W.2d 29, 36 (Neb. 2004) (noting the CPA does not apply to “isolated t…

The Nebraska Supreme Court has made clear that it interprets the public-interest requirement as “limiting language that cannot be ignored.” Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678, 683 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (2000).

Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000).

The CPA applies to unfair or deceptive practices that affect the “public interest.” See Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000).

Neb.Rev.Stat. § 59-1609; Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (2000).

See Zeeman v. Black , 273 S.E.2d 910, 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980) (holding that state consumer fraud act covers only wrongs committed in context of public consumer marketplace); Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co. , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000) (holding that state consumer fraud statute prohibits acts or practices that affect public interest). ¶ 21.

See Zeeman v. Black, 273 S.E.2d 910, 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980) (holding that state consumer fraud act covers only wrongs committed in context of public consumer marketplace); Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000) (holding that state consumer fraud statute prohibits acts or practices that affect public interest). ¶ 21.

See Zeeman v. Black , 273 S.E.2d 910, 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980) (holding that state consumer fraud act covers only wrongs committed in context of public consumer marketplace); Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co. , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000) (holding that state consumer fraud statute prohibits acts or practices that affect public interest). ¶ 21.

Stat. § 59-1601(2) (Reissue 2004). [23] Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678, 683 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (2000). [24] ">24.

See, e.g., Scully Signal Co. v. Joyal, 881 F.Supp. 727, 741 (D.R.I.1995) (holding that corporations may not bring suits); Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich.App. 261 , 600 N.W.2d 384, 392 (1999) (allowing corporations to bring claims only if they made purchase for their own use); Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (2000) (limiting application to acts that affect public interest); Tex. Bus & Com.Code § 17.45(4) (allowing only businesses with…

In Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678, 684 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 142 (2000), we held that this definitional language limited the scope of the Act to acts or practices which have “an impact upon the public interest,” and concluded that the Act is not available “to redress a private wrong where the public interest is unaffected.” Thus, while it must be shown that challenged conduct affects interstate commerce in order to be actionable under the federal antitrust law…

Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (2000) (referring to statutory interpretation).

See, e.g., Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 235 (Colo.1998); Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000); Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins.

See Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136 (2000) (appellate court considers only assignments of error which are both assigned and argued).

See Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136 (2000).

See, Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136 (2000); Schindler v. Walker, 256 Neb. 767 , 592 N.W.2d 912 (1999) (error must be assigned and argued to be considered by appellate court).

See Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678 , 605 N.W.2d 136 (2000) (to be considered by appellate court, alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in brief).