Legal Opinion
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 2, 2014No. A12-1555PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Justice.
At issue in this case is (1) whether Minn. Stat. § 151.21, subd. 4 (2012) creates a private cause of action in favor of respondents, two health and welfare funds, against appellant pharmacies for failing to pass on the difference between the acquisition cost of brand name drugs and substituted generic prescription drugs; and (2) whether the funds pleaded a claim for relief under Minn.Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 (2012), Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12.
In their amended complaint, the funds allege, among other…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Klein v. First Edina National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Jennifer Song v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
- Depositors Ins. Co. v. DollanskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Podpeskar v. Makita U.S.A. Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2017
- Sherr v. Healtheast Care SystemDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2017
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.