Notes of Decisions
Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 5× “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).
· cites it 2× “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).
· cites it 2× “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).
· cites it 3× “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).
· cites it 2× “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.—San Antonio 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.