Legal Opinion

Peterson v. BASF Corp.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 14, 2000No. CX-00-737PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge

Appellants brought this New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim for fraudulent and unconscionable commercial conduct against respondent BASF Corporation, seeking damages for injuries resulting from BASF’s marketing of two identical herbicides. The district court granted BASF’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that appellants failed to show that there were any genuine issues of material fact. Because fact issues exist as to whether BASF’s marketing was fraudulent or unconscionable commercial conduct under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

App…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
  2. Dolgow v. AndersonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1968
  3. Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
  4. Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
  5. Lubbers v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. O'Keefe v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Peterson v. BASF Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  3. Peterson v. BASF Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  4. Whitaker v. 3M Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  5. Brookdale Pontiac-GMC v. Federated InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001

2 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