Muise v. GPU, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• describing Perkins as holding that “a claim that a defect may, but has not, manifested itself until after the expiration of the warranty period cannot form the basis for a claim under the CFA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Blackie v. Barrack
  Ninth Circuit· 1975-09-25· cited 871×
• Hankerson v. North Carolina
  Supreme Court· 1976-10-04· cited 371×
• Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2005-05-18· cited 207×
• In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Action
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2004-08-06· cited 93×
• Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2000-06-14· cited 69×
• Delgozzo v. Kenny
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1993-07-20· cited 47×
• Muise v. GPU, INC.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2004-07-08· cited 36×
• Muise v. GPU, INC.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2000-06-14· cited 34×
• Perkins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2006-02-08· cited 32×
• Dabush v. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2005-05-26· cited 31×
• International Union v. Merck & Co.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2006-03-31· cited 17×
• Sema v. Automall 46 Inc.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2006-03-24· cited 8×
• Smid v. New Jersey Highway Authority
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1993-11-22· cited 4×