Legal Opinion
Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 24, 2008No. 06-56410PublishedCited by 384 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
This court’s mandate of July 13, 2008, 530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.2008), is RECALLED.
The opinion of this court filed on June 19, 2008, slip op. at 7095, 530 F.3d 852, is amended as follows:
1. At slip op. at 7103, 530 F.3d. at 858, amend the second sentence of the first paragraph of Subsection B (beginning “In California, a plaintiff ... ”), so that it states:
Under California Commercial Code section 2314, the implied warranty provision invoked by Clemens, a plaintiff asserting breach of warranty claims must stand in vertical contractual privity with…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Devereaux v. AbbeyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. ChallonerSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by384 opinions
- Margie Daniel v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
- Weisblum v. Prophase Labs, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Tietsworth v. SearsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
- In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
379 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.