Legal Opinion

Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 14, 2007No. 34497-1-IIPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

Penoyar, J.

Mystie Michael appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing her Consumer Protection Act (CPA)1 claims against Bright Now! Dental for her periodontist, Dr. Betsy Mosquera-Lacy, using cow bone for grafting after Michael specifically requested that no animal products be used. There are material issues of fact as to whether an unfair or deceptive act or practice existed, whether the complained-of actions were “entrepreneurial aspects” of the profession that occur in trade or commerce, and whether the complained-of actions impact public interests. We therefore…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Michael v. Mosquera-LacyWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Michael v. Mosquera-LacyWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Brotherson v. Professional Basketball Club, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API