Beverly Cole Anita S. Perkins Jewell P. Lowe v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact because they purchased cars with defective parts, which was in and of itself an economic loss
• holding that plaintiffs who purchased vehicles with defective airbags had standing because they sought “recovery for their actual economic harm (e.g., overpayment, loss in value, or loss of usefulness)[.]”
• noting that car manufacturer issued voluntary recall because it “ha[d] decided that a defect ... exists”
• holding that for purposes of Article III standing of named plaintiffs during class certification under Rule 23 it is “sufficient for standing purposes that the plaintiffs seek recovery for an economic harm that they allege they have suffered.”
• stating that \[t]he Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had no cognizable claims for breach of express and implied warranties-or under any other theory-where the braking systems had never malfunctioned or failed\
• stating that “[t]he Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had no cognizable claims for breach of express and implied warranties—or under any other 1] theory-—where the braking systems had never malfunctioned or failed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).