Legal Opinion

Carrasquilla v. Mazda Motor Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 22, 2002No. 4:CV-96-2240PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

McCLURE, District Judge.

BACKGROUND:

By order dated September 25, 2001, we dismissed as preempted by federal law plaintiffs’ claim based upon defendants’ choice of restraint system consisting of a two-point passive shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. In that same order, we denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to claims that “(1) the Proté-gé was negligently designed and defective in design in that it lacked an adequate seat back, seat track mechanism and knee bolster; and (2) [that] defendants failed to warn adequately of the risk of harm associated with the lack of an…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Robin Chamberlain v. Vincent C. Giampapa, M.D., Individually and Dba Plastic Surgery Center InternationaleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  3. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of WillingboroSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Sondra L. McKenna and James R. McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. Herr Foods, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
  3. Amato v. KPMG LLPDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Mintze v. American General Finance, Inc. (In Re Mintze)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Durkot v. Tesco Equipment, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API