Legal Opinion

Mooberry v. Magnum Manufacturing, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided October 8, 2001No. 46295-4-IPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This appeal requires us to interpret certain provisions of chapter 19.118 RCW, Washington’s “lemon law” statute. Under that statute, a person who purchases a new, but defective, motor home after June 30,1998, cannot seek to have the faulty motor home replaced or repurchased by the motor home manufacturer without first giving it one last chance to repair the serious safety defect or nonconformity. But, because Jerry D. Mooberry purchased his new motor home in 1997, he was not required to comply with the final notification requirements in RCW 19.118.041(3)(b) and (c). Thus, the trial court…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. WrightWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Omega National Insurance v. MarquardtWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Matter of Detention of ChorneyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1992
  4. McFreeze Corp. v. State, Dept. of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  5. McFreeze Corp. v. Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Schoonover v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  2. Schoonover v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  3. Johnson v. KING COUNTY (METRO TRANSIT)Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Johnson v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  5. State v. DupuisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API