Legal Opinion
Peterson v. BASF Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 19, 2004No. C3-02-857PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILBERT, Justice.
This appeal arises out of a nationwide consumer fraud class action in which a group of farmers (“farmers”) asserted that BASF Corporation’s (“BASF”) marketing misled and deceived American farmers into believing that a BASF herbicide, Poast Plus, could not be used on crops such as sugar beets. The farmers claimed that BASF’s marketing manipulated them into purchasing Poast, a higher-priced BASF herbicide. BASF appeals the judgment rendered against it for violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1-56:8-116 (West 2002), which the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
- Milkovich v. SaariSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. DahlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. KuhlmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Anderson v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.