Wis. Court Won't Reopen Harley Lawsuit
Legal News Center
[##_1L|1062991478.jpg|width="130" height="130" alt=""|_##]The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused on Thursday to reopen a class-action lawsuit that accuses Harley-Davidson Inc. of failing to disclose a defect in two engine types sold in 1999 and 2000. In a 4-3 vote, the court upheld a circuit court decision refusing to reopen and amend a 2001 case brought by Steven Tietsworth, of California. Tietsworth claimed the Milwaukee-based motorcycle maker knew or should have known the engine design for some motorcycles made in 1999 and early 2000 was inherently defective. The flaw, he claimed, diminished the value of his motorcycle.
A court of appeals had overruled the circuit court in December 2005, saying Tietsworth's case could be amended to include warranty and contract claims. The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the circuit court has no authority to reopen the amended case.
Harley-Davidson (nyse: HOG - news - people ) spokesman Bob Klein said the company would not comment until it had reviewed the decision. Tietsworth's lawyer, Ted Warshafsky, also declined to comment before reading the decision.
Harley-Davidson sent letters in January 2001 to Tietsworth and 140,000 other owners of 1999 and early 2000 models built with the Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines. The company told owners the rear cam bearing in some bikes had failed but would probably not cause engine failure. Harley extended its warranty for the part and made cam repair kits available for $495.
Tietsworth's complaint, which later involved four other owners, said the problem increased riders' safety risks and decreased the value of their Harleys. A circuit court judge threw out the original case, saying Tietsworth and others failed to show actual damages or economic loss, and its decision was eventually upheld by the state Supreme Court.
In 2004, Tietsworth asked a court to amend his original complaint to include contract and warranty claims. Thursday's Supreme Court decision ended that effort.
Related listings
-
Pace of US class-action filings well below average
Legal News Center 07/10/2007[##_1L|1205799986.jpg|width="120" height="93" alt=""|_##]The number of new U.S. securities class-action filings remains well below average, as stock prices rise and the government takes a harder line on corporate wrongdoing, a study released on Tuesd...
-
Lawsuit challenges green card delay
Legal News Center 07/07/2007[##_1L|1311190803.jpg|width="120" height="138" alt=""|_##]A woman is seeking class-action status for a lawsuit that claims the federal government violated her constitutional rights when it announced that no new employer-sponsored green card applicati...
-
The 2008 Election and the Supreme Court
Legal News Center 07/04/2007[##_1L|1026096275.jpg|width="140" height="135" alt=""|_##]President Bush's promise to change the makeup of the Supreme Court was one of his most reliable applause lines, as candidate and as president. It energized conservative activists like few othe...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.