Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 19, 2013No. 021111819; A137297Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDuncan, J.

As the majority describes, to prove their Unlawful Trade Practices Act claim, plaintiffs have to prove three elements: an unlawful trade practice, causation, and damages. 257 Or App at 117. The majority holds that each of those elements can be litigated on a class-wide basis. I respectfully disagree. In my view, the element of causation cannot be litigated on a class-wide basis.

As the majority holds, to prove the causation element of their particular claim — viz., that they and the putative class members suffered ascertainable losses “as a result of’ the alleged unlawful trade practice, ORS…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Robert L. Moore and Jeannette S. Parry v. Painewebber, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
  2. Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Strawn v. Farmers InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Bernard v. First National Bank of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 1976

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API