Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lemon law protection arises under state law, with every U.S. state and the District of Columbia having its own lemon law. [1] Although the exact criteria vary by state, new vehicle lemon laws require that an auto manufacturer repurchase a vehicle that has a significant defect that the manufacturer is unable to repair within a reasonable amount of time. [2]
Lemon law cases; Suits against the federal government where the position of the government was not "substantially justified" Note that these "fee shifting" awards are a characteristic of the law enforced and do not necessarily depend upon the court in which they were brought; state courts can and do sometimes hear lawsuits brought under federal ...
Lemon laws primarily serve to force manufacturers to buy back defective vehicles or exchange them. Depending on the jurisdiction, a process similar to vehicle title branding may also be used to warn subsequent purchasers of the history of a problem vehicle. While this portion of a vehicle's history is usually not retained with the title when ...
The federal "lemon law" also provides that the warrantor may be obligated to pay the attorney fees of the party prevailing in a lemon law suit, as do most state lemon laws. If a car has to be repaired for the same defect four or more times and the problem is still occurring, the car may be deemed to be a "lemon".
The Bills (11-3) are two games behind the 13-1 Kansas City Chiefs for the No. 1 seed in the AFC with three weeks to go, though Buffalo has the tiebreaker, thanks to its 30-21 win on Nov. 17.
Under the 2022 law, people with a valid government-issued photo ID are still able to submit provisional ballots, which will be counted if they return later that day with a photo ID or if election ...
This is thanks to the ADA, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability. However, assisted living facilities fall under state laws. (Unlike nursing homes, which are ...
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.