Martin v. Ford Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that a vehicle recall rendered a claim moot where the court could grant a “partial remedy,” including monetary damages
• “The [Third Circuit] Rule requires it be clear, from the face of the Complaint, that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.”
• plaintiff’s claims were not moot when plaintiff “challenge[d] the adequacy of the [r]ecall, arguing . . . [it] would not remedy the defect in its entirety”
• “[C]ourts within the Third Circuit have . . . [found] a motion to strike class allegations premature where a motion for class certification has not been made and denied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Martin v. Ford Motor Co.

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Martin v. Ford Motor Co.
  S.D. Texas· 1996-01-31· cited 26×
• Martin v. Ford Motor Co.
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1977-10-24· cited 11×
• Martin v. Ford Motor Co.
  E.D. Michigan· 1950-10-31· cited 9×
• Martin v. Ford Motor Co.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-07-02· cited 7×
• Martin v. Ford Motor Co.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2007-01-30· cited 1×