Legal Opinion
Richards v. Arteva Specialties S.A.R.L.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided July 14, 2006No. 05-P-471PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLaurence, J.
The principal question presented by this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s G. L. c. 93A demand letter, purportedly sent on behalf of herself and a class of Massachusetts indirect purchasers who alleged injury as a result of the defendants’ illegal price-fixing, “reasonably describ[ed] . . . the injury suffered,” as required by G. L. c. 93A, § 9(3), inserted by St. 1969, c. 690. A Superior Court judge held the demand letter to be defective as matter of law for its failure to describe the alleged injury adequately and dismissed the complaint on the defendants’ motions under Mass.R.Civ.P.…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Nader v. CitronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Eyal v. Helen Broadcasting Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Tatro v. Manor Care, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bosque v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
- In re Myford Touch Consumer Litig.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Johnson v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2022
- Hermida v. ArchstoneDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.