Legal Opinion
Olmstead v. General Motors Corp., Inc.
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided October 10, 1985PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’HARA, Judge.
The matter before the Court involves motions for partial summary judgment and bifurcation by the defendants, General Motor Corp., Inc. (“G.M.”) and Delaware Olds, Inc. (“DE Olds”), in this breach of warranty action brought by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated both State, 6 Del. C. §§ 2-314 and 2-315, and Federal, 15 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(4), warranties by failing to repair, replace, or refund the purchase price of a defective 1979 Toro-nado (“the car”). G.M. has filed a motion in limine, in conjunction with the two motions mentioned above, to limit the evidence…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lynx, Inc. v. Ordnance Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Beal v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1973
- Ventura v. Ford Motor Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
- George A. MacKenzie v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Ford Motor Co. v. MayesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. Fleetwood Motor HomesDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2000
- Riegel Power Corporation Mount Vernon Mills, Inc. v. Voith Hydro Crowder Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. AbramsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1988
- Freedman v. Chrysler Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1989
- Nicole Robinson & Kaliyah Robinson v. Robin Drive Auto, LLCDelaware Court of Common Pleas · 2025