Church & Dwight Co. v. Huey

33 Citing cases

  1. Romero v. HP, Inc.

    Case No. 16-CV-05415-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Specifically, to state a claim against a manufacturer under the Texas Act for a misrepresentation, facts must be alleged that the manufacturer (1) made a misrepresentation that (2) was the "producing cause" of a consumer's harm, that is, "reached a consumer and induced him to buy [a] product." Church & Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 565-66 (Tex. App. 1997) (finding manufacturer liable where "Church & Dwight's marketing efforts were incorporated into American Grafitti's marketing efforts, and they formed the basis for Huey's decision to use the product."). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant are "devoid of any specifics" that show that Defendant was the cause of Plaintiff's harm.

  2. In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Prods. Liab. Litig.

    880 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Ohio 2012)   Cited 154 times
    Finding the plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for breach of implied warranty in tort where the plaintiff alleged that the defective coolant tubes could cause sudden engine failure while traveling at high speeds

    Because the Amstadt defendants were “upstream suppliers” of the parts used in a plumbing system and because their alleged misrepresentations were not communicated to consumers, the court found that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the “in-connection-with” requirement under the TDTPA. Id. at 647, 650–51;see also Church & Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 565 (Tex.App.1997) (citing Amstadt and concluding that the “in connection with” requirement was met where the “[the manufacturer's] marketing efforts were incorporated into [the immediate seller's] marketing efforts, and they formed the basis for [the plaintiff's] decision to use the product”).

  3. Drury Sw. Inc. v. Louie Ledeaux #1 Inc.

    350 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that as long as the award of damages is within the range of evidence, “a reviewing court is not permitted to speculate on how the jury actually arrived at its award”

    A misrepresentation made during contract negotiations may form the basis of a DTPA claim if the defendant misrepresents a material fact about the goods or services sold to the plaintiff. Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex.1995); Church & Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 567 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied). However, the mere failure to perform a contractual obligation cannot form the basis of a DTPA claim.

  4. Drury Sou. v. Louie Led. 1

    No. 04-10-00016-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 6, 2011)

    A misrepresentation made during contract negotiations may form the basis of a DTPA claim if the defendant misrepresents a material fact about the goods or services sold to the plaintiff. Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995); Church Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 567 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied). However, the mere failure to perform a contractual obligation cannot form the basis of a DTPA claim.

  5. Drury Southwest v. Louie

    No. 04-10-00016-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2011)

    A misrepresentation made during contract negotiations may form the basis of a DTPA claim if the defendant misrepresents a material fact about the goods or services sold to the plaintiff. See Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995); Church Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 567 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). However, the mere failure to perform a contractual obligation cannot form the basis of a DTPA claim.

  6. Edwards v. Schuh

    5 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that subsequent purchaser of building suing builder for breach of express and implied warranties is not bound by arbitration clause in construction contract where no evidence showed purchaser was third-party beneficiary

    Donelson v. Fairmont Foods Co., 252 S.W.2d 796, 799 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1952, writ ref'd n.r.e.). No special terms or form is required to make a warranty. See Church Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 568 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied) (advertising brochure sufficient to constitute a warranty); McCrea v. Cubilla Condominium Corp. N.V., 685 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (subsequent letter stating a warranty sufficient to negate contract's express waiver of all warranties). We conclude the April 1, 1997 letter is an express warranty covering the materials and labor incorporated into the buildings.

  7. Klein v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co.

    No. 13-20754 (5th Cir. Jul. 15, 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Klein erroneously contends that the dispositive issue is "whether the defective custom windows in this case were, or were not, a component part." The case upon which Klein relies heavily, Church & Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. App. 1997), makes clear: "Amstadt's reasoning is not limited to cases where the manufacturer has produced a component part of a completed product, but . . . stands for the broader principle that the manufacturer in any case must be connected to the consumer transaction in order to be held liable for deceptive trade practices." Id. at 565.

  8. Bauer v. AGCO Corp.

    No. SA-23-CV-00993-JKP (W.D. Tex. May. 23, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    “The elements of a DTPA misrepresentation claim are: (1) the plaintiff is a consumer; (2) the defendant engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts; and (3) the acts were a producing cause of the plaintiff's injuries.” Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 567 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied).

  9. Olson v. Baseball

    447 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 27 times

    Most of the cases address the liability of manufacturers of a product. Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2019 WL 4751911 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019) ; Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2002) ; Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997). The rest are inapposite for other reasons.

  10. In re Ford Motor Co.

    CASE NO. 1:12-md-2316 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 30, 2014)

    63 ("DTPA"). Church & Dwight Co. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 564-66 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997). According to Plaintiffs, the same is true for Ernestburg, Kinch and Kmet.