Legal Opinion

Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 2006No. CV-05-0104-PRPublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RYAN, Justice.

¶ 1 In this case, we must determine whether an automobile lessee can maintain an action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (‘Warranty Act” or “Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312 (2000), and whether the lessee has a right to pursue remedies under the Arizona Motor Vehicle Warranties Act (“Lemon Law”), Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 44-1261 to -1267 (2003 & Supp.2005). We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, a lessee neither can sue under the Warranty Act nor have remedies under the Lemon Law.

I

¶ 2 Bill Parrot leased a 2000 Jeep Cherokee from Pitre Chrysler Plymouth…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Kent K. v. Bobby M.Arizona Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Mesa v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
  5. DiCintio v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2002

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Yollin v. City of GlendaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  2. Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. NavarroArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State ex rel. Montgomery v. HarrisArizona Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API