Mattuck v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• issued after Razor-, acknowledging the supreme court’s statement in Razor, but declining to “sua sponte read that isolated statement to indicate that portions of the Act, such as section 2310(d) in particular, do not apply to limited warranties” and continuing to follow Mydlach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).