What is LawBrain?
It's a living legal community making laws accessible and interactive. Click Here to get Started »

Supreme Court cases (2000-2009) - Consumer Protection law

From lawbrain.com


Wyeth v. Levine (2009)

In a tort action based on an injury due to the medical use of Wyeth's drug Phenergan, judgment for respondent Levine is affirmed where Federal law does not preempt Levine's claim that the drug's label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration.

Altria Group, Inc., v. Good (2008)

In an action brought by smokers of "light" cigarettes manufactured by defendants claiming that defendants violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA), the Court rules that: 1) the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not preempt state-law claims like respondents' that were predicated on the duty not to deceive; and 2) the FTC's various decisions with respect to statements of tar and nicotine content do not impliedly preempt plaintiffs' claim

Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr (2007)

In the context of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires notice to any consumer subjected to "adverse action...based in whole or in part on any information contained in a consumer [credit] report" and imposes civil liability on one who "willfully fails" to provide such notice, willful failure covers a violation committed in reckless disregard of the notice obligation.

Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh (2004)

A 1995 amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), which raises the minimum and maximum recoveries for violations of TILA prescriptions governing closed-end loans secured by real property, does not alter the minimum and maximum recovery amounts for violations involving personal-property loans.

Household Credit Servs., Inc. v. Pfennig (2004)

Regulation Z, which interprets the Truth in Lending Act's definition of "finance charge" to exclude charges for exceeding a credit limit, is not an unreasonable interpretation of 15 U.S.C. section 1605.

Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson (2003)

An action filed in state court, to recover damages from a national bank for allegedly charging excessive interest in violation of both the "common law usury doctrine" and an Alabama usury statute, arose only under federal law and could therefore be removed under 28 U.S.C. section 1441.

Illinois ex rel Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc. (2003)

States may maintain fraud actions when fundraisers make false or misleading representations designed to deceive donors about how their donations will be used, consistent with Supreme Court precedent and the First Amendment.

TRW Inc. v. Andrews (2001)

The statute of limitations under 15 USC 1681p of the Fair Credit Reporting Act starts to run when the reporting agency made the erroneous report and not when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the misrepresentation.

  • This LawBrain entry is a stub. Please help us expand it! Click the 'Edit' tab above to add to this page.



FindLaw VM