Cases

659 F.Supp.2d 350 (2009) J.P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendant. No. 09-CV-0204 (JS)(ETB). United States District Court, E.D. New York. September 14, 2009. *351 Heath S. Berger, Esq., Steinberg, Fineo, Berger & Fischoff, P.C., Woodbury, NY, for Plaintiff. Carl J. Chiappa, Esq

610 F.3d 1171 (2010) TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Farzad TABARI; Lisa Tabari, California residents, d/b/a Fast Imports, Defendants-counter-claimants Appellants. No. 07-55344. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 8, 2009. Filed July 8, 2010.

Slip Op. 11-113 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE : TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.: : Plaintiff, : : Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge v. : : Court No. 04-00643 UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, :

SHAW, Justice. In these consolidated appeals, Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., d/b/a Bob Tyler Toyota (“BTT”), one of two named defendants below, appeals in case no. 1110840 from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Daphne Automotive, LLC, d/b/a Eastern Shore Toyota (“EST”), and Shawn *933Esfahani, the plaintiffs below, on the plaintiffs’ claims seeking damage

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 4, 2021 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00284-CV TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. AND TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Appellants V. BENJAMIN THOMAS REAVIS AND KRISTI CAROL REAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF E.R. AND O.R., MINOR

Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 02492) Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 02492 Decided on May 10, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 19 Digitally signed by Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2022.08.15 10:40:50 -05'00' DIVISIONS II & III Adobe Acrobat version: No. CV-18-752 2022.002.20191 THERESA VIGO MIAOULIS, AS Opinion Delivered: January 13, 2021 GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND OF JOH

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge Plaintiff Ghislaine Pierre filed the above-captioned action against Defendants Planet Automotive, Inc. (“Planet”) and American Suzuki Financial Services (“Suzuki”) on February 6, 2013, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act (“MMWA”), and asserting claims of common law fraud and

702 F.Supp. 1031 (1988) MEAD DATA CENTRAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and Toyota Motor Corp., Defendants. No. 88 Civ. 2854 (DNE). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 30, 1988. *1032 *1033 Smith & Schnacke, Charles J. Faruki, Sue K. McDonnell, Ma

HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants Scott E. Casey and Robert James Gillis (collectively Casey) filed this products liability suit against Defendants-Appellees (collectively Toyota) stemming from a tragic single-car automobile accident in which Scott Casey’s wife Dawna suffered fatal injuries. Among other claims, Casey brought manufacturing and design defect claims bas

(2007) MOSES AUTOMOTIVE, INC., dba Moses Honda, a West Virginia corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:07-0361. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division. August 2, 2007. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, District Judge.

585 F.Supp. 649 (1984) TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Consol. Court No. 81-1-00048. United States Court of International Trade. April 10, 1984. *650 Cladouhos & Brashares, Washington, D.C., David D. Laufer, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel (Harry W. Cladouhos, William C. Brashares, Paul

SEGAL, J. *1370INTRODUCTION William Jae Kim (Kim) and Hee Joon Kim appeal from a judgment after a jury trial in favor of Toyota Motor Corporation and other defendants in this strict products liability action. Kim lost control of his 2005 Toyota Tundra pickup truck when he swerved to avoid another vehicle on t

[Cite as Frye v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2024-Ohio-1554.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Kirtlund C. Frye et al., : Appellants-Appellants, : No. 23AP-490 v. : (C.P.C. No. 21CV-7084) American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al.

Filed 2/8/16 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN WILLIAM JAE KIM et al., B247672 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC05

Filed 1/19/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN WILLIAM JAE KIM et al., B247672 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC059206) v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On December 12, 2013, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendants Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Calty Design Research, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., and Toyota Motor S

Filed 7/24/23 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- BARBER GROUP, INC., C095058 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-202

PLEUS, J. This is an appeal of the denial of a motion for a temporary injunction made pursuant to section 320.695 of the Florida Automotive Dealer’s Day In Court Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). The trial court denied injunctive relief because it found that the petitioner was not a “motor vehicle dealer” as set forth in the statute. We affirm that decision.

Lanzinger, J. {¶ 1} We accepted this case as a discretionary appeal to clarify what damages are available under R.C. 1345.09, the private-remedy section of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practice Act (“CSPA”). *178Facts {¶ 2} This dispute, which is between appellant, Craig Whitaker, and appellee, M.T. Automotive, Inc., a car dealership doi