Cases

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-2-33651-3, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., entered February 18, 2005. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

934 F.Supp. 596 (1996) BRONX AUTO MALL, INC., d/b/a Bronx Acura, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. No. 96 Civ. 1099 (LAK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 26, 1996. *597 Thomas C. Moore, Mark Mendelsohn, Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, for Plaintiff. Robert L.

585 So.2d 1336 (1991) Autrey L. DENNIS, Jr., an incompetent, who sues By and Through his mother and court appointed guardian, Wilhemenia DENNIS, et al. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 89-1841. Supreme Court of Alabama. August 16, 1991. Patrick M. Sigler and Stephen C. Moore, and Daniel A. Pike, Mobile, for appellant. De Martenson of Huie, Fernambucq &am;

803 P.2d 386 (1990) William YURIOFF, Appellant, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and Port Lions Community Store, Appellees. No. S-3106. Supreme Court of Alaska. November 30, 1990. *387 John W. Hendrickson, Anchorage, for appellant. Robert L. Eastaugh, Delaney, Wiles, Hayes, Reitman & Brubaker, Inc., Anchorage, fo

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION AMANDA DULLINGER and ) STEPHEN DULLINGER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N15C-04-281 ASB ) AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

Affirm; Opinion Filed November 24, 2021 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00850-CV AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Appellant V. SARAH MILBURN, JOHN MILBURN, AND CAROLYN MILBURN, Appellees On Appeal from the 116

PER CURIAM. This appeal concerns the termination of an automobile dealer’s franchise. American Honda Motor Co. (“AHMC”) appeals from the August 2, 1996, judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge), enjoining AHMC, as franchisor, from terminating the franchise agreement of Bronx

O’ROURKE, J., Concurring and Dissenting I agree with my colleagues’ conclusions that Paduano’s causes of action for breach of warranty under state and federal law are preempted by federal law. However, for the reasons set forth below I would affirm the order granting summary judgment. In my view, Paduano’s false advertising claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 e

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On December 10, 2010, plaintiffs David J. Keegan, Luis Garcia, Betty Kolstad, Carol Hinkle, Eric Ellis, Charles Wright, and Jonathan Zdeb filed this putative class action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., alleging claims under the Califor

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On December 10, 2010, plaintiffs David J. Keegan, Luis Garcia, Betty Kolstad, Carol Hinkle, Eric Ellis, Charles Wright, and Jonathan Zdeb filed this putative class action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., alleging claims under the California Consumer Leg

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. Robert Vernon Kloepfer and Cindy Klo-epfer (Kloepfers) appeal from an adverse jury verdict and judgment thereon following a one month trial. The Kloepfers initiated this product liability action after their six-year-old son Brandon was killed while riding as a passenger on a Honda three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (ATV) owned and operated by his uncle, Kevin Pearson. Brandon was riding withou

ORDER JOE F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant Honda Research and Development (Honda R & D) Co., Ltd. to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(4) and (5). After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and the applicable legal principles, the motion is denied. As the issues are clear, oral argument is not necessary t

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER, PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [Docket # 83] VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK, District Judge. The Court has received, read and considered Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class *615Certification (Docket # 83) and the documents submitted in support of the Motion; Defendant’s Opposition

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CLAY, J., joined. ROGERS, J. (pp. 490-91), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this diversity-of-citizenship lawsuit arising under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (“TPLA”), the district court granted summary judgment to Defendant Appellee American Honda Motor Company (“Honda”

669 F.Supp. 365 (1987) Robert G. WARREN, Robert Warren, Jr. and Cynthia Aeschlimann, Plaintiffs, v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a Japanese corporation, Honda Research and Development Company, Ltd., a Japanese corporation, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1 through 50, incl., Defendants. Civ. No. C-85-1053J. United States District Court, D. Utah, C.D.

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

701 P.2d 628 (1985) Jaime CAMACHO and Kathleen Camacho, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., a corporation; and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 82CA1322. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. January 24, 1985. Rehearing Denied February 21, 1985. Certiorari Granted June 10, 1985.

McKAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Michael Montag and Plaintiff-Intervenor United of Omaha Life Insurance Company (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from a judgment against them in this products liability action. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants American Honda Motor Company, Honda Motor Co. Ltd., and Honda R & D Co., Ltd. (“Honda”) defectively designed the seat belt in a 1988 Honda Prelude driven by Diane Montag, Mr. Montag’s deceased w

941 F.Supp. 323 (1996) Jeanette MAMMANO, as Guardian of the person and property of Elizabeth Susan Mammano, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Peterbilt Motors Company, being a fictitious name and being a Division of Pacar, Inc., Defendants. Jeanette MAMMANO, as Guardian of the person and property of Elizabeth Susan Mammano, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant. Nos. 96-CV-6319L, 96-

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0247p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - SHELLY SIGLER,