Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Garten

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the appellate court must assume the truth of all the evidence, and all of the favorable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, tending to support the factual conclusions of the lower court
• recognizing that the appellate court must assume the truth of all the evidence, and all of the favorable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, tending to support the factual conclusions of the lower court
• holding an express request for attorney’s fees was not necessary to recovery in an action brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
• noting that “the car in question was accepted by another Mercedes-Benz dealer as a trade-in” in evaluating whether a 1990 300E “passed without objection in the trade under the contract description”
• explaining that “[t]here is no doubt that [plaintiff] may recover attorney’s fees under § 13-408(b) of the [MJCPA, but not for the breach of an express warranty” but declining to impose a “requirement of keeping detailed records into the consumer protection arena.”
• stating plaintiffs use of a vehicle, in which the plaintiff put approximately 1800 miles on the vehicle in the span of one month is “hardly indicative of an individual who considers a car unsafe.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).