Radford v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding MMWA’s opportunity to cure requirement was met where plaintiff sufficiently pled that defendant manufacturer knew of the allegedly defective instrument panel at the time of sale
• defendant’s actual knowledge of the “alleged defect at the time of sale” may be sufficient notice for opportunity to cure under the MMWA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Tietsworth v. Sears
  N.D. California· 2010-03-31· cited 86×
• In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
  S.D. California· 2014-01-21· cited 82×
• In re Myford Touch Consumer Litigation
  N.D. California· 2014-05-30· cited 64×
• Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc.
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2006-11-21· cited 49×
• Bearden v. Honeywell International Inc.
  M.D. Tennessee· 2010-06-14· cited 21×
• St. Clair v. Kroger Co.
  N.D. Ohio· 2008-10-14· cited 16×
• Tn Farmers Mutual v. Ford Motor
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2001-09-17
• Glenn Thomas v. Valpo Motors Inc.
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2025-05-13

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-16· cited 1,227×
• Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co.
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-02· cited 152×
• Alberti v. General Motors Corp.
  District of Columbia· 1985-01-16· cited 17×