Legal Opinion
Carrasquilla v. Mazda Motor Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 25, 2001No. 4:CV-96-2240PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM (# 1)
McCLURE, District Judge.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiffs initiated this diversity action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1332 with the filing of a complaint alleging various state-law claims arising from a motor vehicle accident. 1 Succinctly stated, plaintiffs allege that the Mazda Protégé manufactured and/or marketed by defendants was not designed to protect sufficiently the passengers should an accident occur.
Defendant Mazda Motor Corporation filed a third-party complaint against Mark Thompson, the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident. 2
By order dated August 29, 1997, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Boyle v. County Of Allegheny PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- MCI Sales and Service, Inc. v. HintonTexas Supreme Court · 2010
- Osman v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2005
- Heinricher v. Volvo Car CorporationMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
- Alami v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- MCI Sales and Service, Inc. v. HintonTexas Supreme Court · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.