42 U.S.C. § 5409
Prohibited acts; exemptions
2000—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 106–569 added par. (7).
1980—Subsecs. (a)(1), (4), (b)(1) to (5), (c). Pub. L. 96–399 substituted “manufactured home” for “mobile home” wherever appearing.
1977—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 95–128 added par. (6).
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–569 effective
Section effective upon the expiration of 180 days following
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “This conclusion is reinforced by the two saving clauses contained in 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c) and 42 U.S.C. § 5414 (g), which address and explicitly preserve the rights of consumers to file civil actions under the Act.”
Redman Homes, Inc. v. Ivy, 920 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. 1996). “See 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (a). Redman first contends that, because the unit in question complied with all federal standards and obtained the required inspection label, the NMHCSSA precludes the Ivys from recovering on the judgment below.”
Wilson v. Pleasant, 660 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 1996). “42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c) (1995); Shorter v. Champion Home Builders, 776 F.”
Harrison v. Skyline Corp., 686 S.E.2d 735 (W. Va. 2009). “Does the “savings clause” of 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c) preclude the Court from granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment when despite the legislative history which established that it was is [sic] HUD’s intention that federal standards preempt State and local formaldehyde…”
Lady v. Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2000). “§ 5403 (d), did not preempt a tort action against the manufacturer of a mobile home, in light of the Manufactured Housing Act’s also containing a savings provision which stated that "[c]ompliance with any Federal manufactured home construction or safety standard issued under…”
Choate v. Champion Home Builders Co., 222 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2000). “Choate and Madewell responded that a “saving” clause in the Manufactured Housing Act at 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c) preserved their claim from preemption.”
Shorter v. Champion Home Builders Co., 776 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ohio 1991). “42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c). Plaintiffs argue that “[h]ere, Congress made it clear that even compliance with a mobile home standard will not bar common law actions.”
MacMillan v. Redman Homes, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. App. 1991). “42 U.S.C. § 5409 provides: (c) Compliance with any Federal manufactured home construction or safety standard issued under this chapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.”
Smith v. Cappaert Manufactured Hous., Inc., 89 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2012). “We note, however, that 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c) states that “[cjompliance with any Federal manufactured home construction or safety standard issued under this chapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.”
In Re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 620 F. Supp. 2d 755 (E.D. La. 2009). “” 6 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (c). Additionally, the MHA contains a provision that sets forth state court jurisdiction under state law: Nothing in this chapter shall prevent any State agency or court from asserting jurisdiction under State law over any manufactured home construction or…”
Stegall v. Kynaston, 613 P.2d 1214 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “…national mobile home act exempts "any mobile home after the first purchase in good faith for the purposes of resale." 42 U.S.C. § 5409 (b)(1).”
Richard v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 4 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Tex. 1998). “42 U.S.C. §§ 5409 (c), 5414(g)(2). Therefore, the statute is devoid of Congressional intent to create a private cause of action.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.