Legal Opinion
Pearn v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 26, 2002No. Nos. 20643, 20704 and 20707PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Carr, Judge.
{¶ 1} Appellants Rolling Acres Dodge, Inc. (“Rolling Acres”) and Daimler-Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”) appeal from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This court affirms.
I
{¶ 2} This case begins with the purchase of a 1996 Chrysler Sebring Coupe by Donna Sawicki in Detroit, Michigan. Sawicki had numerous problems with the brakes on the Sebring. Chrysler repurchased the vehicle from Sawicki in September 1997 because it was a “lemon” within the meaning of Michigan’s lemon law, due to repeated brake failures. The vehicle was then sent to the Detroit Auto…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited18 opinions
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Preston v. MurtyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sicklesmith v. Chester HoistOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
- State v. CookOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Blankenship v. CFMOTO Powersports, Inc.Clermont County Court of Common Pleas · 2011
- Carter v. R&B Pizza Co., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Indymac Bank, F. S. B. v. Starcher, 24194 (8-13-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.