Kruger v. Subaru of America, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DITTER, District Judge.
In this ease, the plaintiffs contend that they purchased a defective automobile manu factored by the defendant. The parties reached a settlement agreement that included the plaintiffs’ returning the vehicle, but it has since been stolen making the. agreement impossible to perform. 1 The defendant has now moved for summary judgment contending that the plaintiffs cannot “sustain their burden of proof regarding either defect in the subject vehicle or the appropriate measure of damages.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 6). For the reasons that follow, I…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Orson, Inc. T/a Roxy Screening Rooms v. Miramax Film Corp. Orson, Inc., D/b/a/ Roxy Screening RoomsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- James Suber v. Chrysler Corporation v. Kontinental Koaches, Inc., A/K/A and D/B/A Kontinental Konversions, Third-Party Chrysler Corporation, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Altronics of Bethlehem, Inc. Altronics of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Repco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- K & C, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- George A. MacKenzie v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Leavitt v. Monaco Coach Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2000
- Price v. Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Woolums v. NATIONAL RVDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Martin v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
- Neary v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2022