Legal Opinion
Hoyte v. Yum! Brands, Inc.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 2, 2007No. Civil Action 06-1127 (JR)PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ROBERTSON, District Judge.
Defendant Yum! Brands, Inc. (parent company of KFC) moves to dismiss the complaint of Arthur Hoyte, M.D., [12], which alleges that KFC failed to disclose the presence of trans fat in its food and made misleading statements to the public concerning the content of its food. For the reasons set forth below, that motion will be granted.
Background 1
Trans fat is a “major cause of heart disease [that] should be phased out of the food supply as rapidly as possible,” 2 since “the only safe level of trans fat in the diet is zero.” 3 [1] ¶ 21, 20. Dr. Hoyte alleges…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Charles Kowal v. MCI Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Dolly Kyle Browning and Direct Outstanding Creations Corporation v. William Jefferson ClintonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002
- Warren v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004
- Macharia, Merania v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
- Williams v. BakerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Jacobson v. HofgardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Jefferson v. CollinsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Whiting v. AARPDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- In Re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortg. MarketingDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2009
- In re Light Cigarettes Marketing Sales Practices LitigationDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.