Legal Opinion
Mady v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided March 26, 2008No. 4D07-842PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMay, J.
Statutory authorization for prevailing party attorney’s fees under the Magnuson-Moss Act is challenged in this appeal. The plaintiff appeals an order denying his request for attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2) (Supp.2005). He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion because he was a prevailing party. We disagree and affirm.
In May 2003, the plaintiff leased a 2003 Dodge Viper, manufactured by Daimler-Chrysler Corporation. Not long after, the plaintiff sued DaimlerChrysler for breach of written and implied warranties, pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty— Federal Trade…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Wollard v. Lloyd's & Companies of Lloyd'sSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mady v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 2011
- Dan's Car World, LLC, A West Virginia Limited Liability Company D/B/A/ Dan Cava's Toyota World v. Caressa DelaneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2022