Margie Daniel v. Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \[a] reasonable fact finder could infer that a vehicle that experiences premature and more frequent tire wear would pose an unreasonable safety risk\
• holding that jury's finding of reliance adequate even though \Ford presented evidence that conclusively establishes that Plaintiffs did not view any advertising materials produced by Ford prior to purchase\
• recognizing that we “must adhere to state court decisions—not federal court decisions—as the authoritative interpretation of state law”
• recognizing that “[e]ven though unpublished California Courts of Appeal decisions have no precedential value under California law, the Ninth Circuit is not precluded from considering such decisions as a possible reflection of California law”
• stating that “[f]raudulent omissions are actionable under both” the CLRA and the UCL and that they require pleading and proof of “actual reliance”
• reversing district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to late discovery of latent defect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).