Legal Opinion
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided February 24, 2005No. 1 CA-CV 04-0121PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, J.
¶ 1 Bill Parrot appeals from the summary judgment for the DaimlerChrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”) that precluded him from pursuing his claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) (1998) (“Magnuson-Moss Act” or “Act”), and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Warranties Act (“Lemon Law”), Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 44-1261 et seq. (2003). For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment and remand this matter for appropriate further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 Parrot 1 leased a 2000 Jeep Cherokee (“Jeep” or ‘Vehicle”) manufactured by Chrysler…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. Wong Kim Bo, A/K/A Yee Kuk Ho, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
- Janson v. ChristensenArizona Supreme Court · 1991
- Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Mesa v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- Hourani v. Benson HospitalCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 2006
- Cerasani v. American Honda Motor Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- O'Connor v. Bmw of North America, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.