Legal Opinion
Vallies v. Sky Bank
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided December 31, 2009No. 08-4160PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
In this putative class action, the sole issue presented by this appeal is whether a plaintiff must prove detrimental reliance in order to recover actual damages sustained because of a disclosure violation under § 1640(a) 1 of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-67. The District Court, following persuasive authority from our sister courts of appeals, concluded that detrimental reliance was required, and granted summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff failed to plead and could not prove detrimental reliance. We will affirm.
I
Louis…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Stout v. J.D. ByriderCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Aron Rosenberg v. Xm Ventures, a Maryland Trust and Motient Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Petroff-KlineCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- William Krieger v. Bank of America NACourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Daniel Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Phelps, N. v. Caperoon, L.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- In Re Community Bank of Northern VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.