Legal Opinion
Harvell v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 3, 2007No. 102,128PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKauger, J.
T1 The only issue presented 1 is whether the trial court abused its discretion in certifying a class pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 2023.2 We hold that it did.
*1031FACTS
T2 On July 28, 2004, the plaintiff/appellee, Lori Harvell (Harvell/eustomer) noticed that the check engine light in her car was on. After spotting a Goodyear Auto Service Center (service center) a few blocks away, she pulled into the service center to get her car checked. After performing a diagnostic check on the vehicle, the service center recommended that she replace the spark plugs and told her that her brakes were worn. Rather than…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Cornelius Cooper v. Southern CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- School District of Lancaster v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Robert Stewart v. Lynne AbrahamCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Molski v. GleichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- AMERICAN BIOMEDICAL GROUP, INC. v. TECHTROL, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- Yavuz v. 61 MM, LTD.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Hitch Enterprises, Inc. v. Cimarex Energy Co.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2012
- Krug v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013
- Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.