Hull v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOWARD, Presiding J.
¶ 1 Appellant DaimlerChrysler Corporation appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of appellees Travis and Shelly Hull in the Hulls’ “Lemon Law” action. DaimlerChrysler contends the trial court erred in several respects, including denying DaimlerChrysler’s motion to dismiss the action because the Hulls had sold the vehicle before trial and were no longer entitled to the relief provided by the statute. Because we agree that the Hulls were not entitled to relief under the Lemon Law after they sold the vehicle, we reverse the judgment and direct…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jennings v. LeeArizona Supreme Court · 1969
- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. GartenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- Blankenbaker v. JonovichArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- Buford v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
- Register v. ColemanArizona Supreme Court · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2007
- Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- Tritschler v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2006
- Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand HaddockCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.