Legal Opinion

Antonio Hinojos v. Kohl's Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 21, 2013No. 11-55793PublishedCited by 165 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge WARDLAW.

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

Most consumers have, at some point, purchased merchandise that was marketed as being “on sale” because the proffered discount seemed too good to pass up. Retailers, well aware of consumers’ susceptibility to a bargain, therefore have an incentive to lie to their customers by falsely claiming that their products have previously sold at a far higher “original” price in order to induce customers to purchase merchandise at a purportedly marked-down “sale” price. Because such practices are misleading — and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  5. Thompson v. PaulCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

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

3Cited by165 opinions

  1. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  2. Polo v. Innoventions International, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  3. Reid v. Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  4. Robert Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
  5. Tamara Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020

160 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