Legal Opinion
Lohman v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided March 15, 2007No. 25,752PublishedCited by 86 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ORTIZ, Judge (sitting by designation of New Mexico Supreme Court).
{1} This is a putative class action relating to allegedly defective seat belt buckles. The first amended complaint alleged several causes of action, all of which were dismissed except a claim under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA). By their interlocutory’ appeals. Defendants Daimler-Chrysler Corporation (DCC) and United States Testing Company (USTC) (collectively, Defendants) seek the dismissal of the remaining UPA claim. For the reasons that follow, we reject Defendant’s various assertions of error and affirm.
BACKGROUND
{2}…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
- Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Hale v. Basin Motor Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- Grassie v. Roswell Hospital Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2010
- Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2019
- Sanders v. Crespin (In re Crespin)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · 2016
- In re EpipenDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2018
- Padilla v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2017
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.