¶ 47, Ex. 1.) Further, Plaintiff contends that Defendants materially misrepresented their services by stating in their admission agreement that Defendants would provide “basic room and board, general nursing care, social services, dietary services, and activities as required by law.” Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations to her detriment. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ statements are misrepresentations because, according to Plaintiff, Defendants do not operate their nursing homes in accordance with legal standards. Plaintiff notes that state regulatory officials have cited Defendants’ nursing homes with deficiencies, showing that Defendants have not complied with all applicable legal standards. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have also violated (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The contrast between puffing statements and
holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery holding that irreparable harm may be presumed if the challenged advertisement directly but falsely proclaims the superiority of defendants product over plaintiffs product holding statement that product was americas favorite pasta was puffery holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents