What we need now is “taxpayer protection,” or “naive and gullible reader protection” - or perhaps a “lemon law” to protect voters from incompetent representatives. A recall system, an evaluation standard, a check-off list of duties not performed to rescind the results of an election are now required in a “civilized” society.

And if the representatives fail in their report card, they would be denied any benefits, salary, perks or rewards. They would be recalled or would stay in office without pay until their term ends, unless they actually accomplish wise and beneficial tasks they were elected to perform.

The Voter Protection Agency could be staffed by retired clerks who have nothing to gain or lose by their evaluation results.
Source

One of the few pieces of good news to come out of the recent bankruptcy filings from GM and Chrysler is that both companies have promised to honor “Lemon Law” claims made before the companies restructured.

Personal injury suits, however, are a different story altogether. Consumers injured in accidents involving Chrysler and GM cars made before the bankruptcies are likely to be left in the lurch as the companies reorganize.

As they emerge from the rubble of their bankruptcy filings, Chrysler and GM are now essentially brand new companies. Going forward, for legal purposes, there will effectively be a “new” and “old” version of each company. Both “new” companies will remain liable for any injuries suffered in the future, but claims for past injuries, while the “old” companies were still active, are less clear-cut.

Under the arrangement, neither GM nor Chrysler will be held accountable for accidents that occurred before the bankruptcy filings. While this might seem like a trivial footnote in the story of two titans’ respective financial crises, its effects are surprisingly widespread: consumers with unresolved claims against the companies number in the hundreds.

Attorneys for accident victims were able to win a small concession from GM; the automaker will remain liable for future accidents involving cars built before the company filed for bankruptcy. Chrysler, however, is off the hook for those accidents as well.

Chrysler spokesman Mike Palese told the Los Angeles Times that it is “really important for the future viability of the company that we would be free from this type of liability.” That may be true, but it’s likely little consolation for the accident victims drowning in medical bills and struggling to keep from filing bankruptcy themselves.

One member of Congress is trying to hold the automakers accountable. Rep. Andre Carson (D-IA) has introduced a bill that would force GM and Chrysler to cover all future claims for vehicles built before the companies’ restructuring. The bill is named after accident victim Jeremy Warriner, who blames an accident that took both his legs on a faulty brake fluid container in his 2005 Jeep Wrangler. Jeep vehicles are manufactured by Chrysler.

Initially, even claims under state Lemon Laws were in doubt after a federal bankruptcy court exempted the “New Chrysler” from liability for defects in vehicles manufactured before the restructuring. Both GM and Chrysler relented after a number of state attorneys general poured on the pressure.

The bankruptcies marked a stunning fall from grace for two of Detroit’s “Big Three.” Chrysler filed for bankruptcy on April 30; GM followed suit on June 1. Under agreements with the federal government, GM CEO Rick Wagoner was shown the door and Chrysler was forced to merge with Italian automaker Fiat. GM’s bankruptcy filing was the fourth largest in U.S. history.

Source

Justices also announced a new standard in Harvot v. Solo Cup Co., 2009 WI 85, for determining whether a cause of action traces back to the mid-19th century common law.

Dissenting justices criticized the majority for proclaiming a broad rule on jury trial rights that unsettles the status of many jury trials with unanswered questions. They also doubted the majority has clarified which causes of action can be found in the common law.

Injured employee

Kelly Harvot filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development against her employer, Hoffmaster Solo Cup Co., under the Wisconsin Family or Medical Leave Act (WFMLA) statute, Wis. Stat. § 103.10.

An administrative law judge agreed with Harvot and directed Solo Cup to reinstate Harvot with back pay, cover the cost of her attorney’s fees, and provide training to its human resources staff. Harvot then filed suit under Wis. Stat. § 103.10 (13) (a), which provides a private right of action against an employer to recover damages caused by a WFMLA violation.

Solo Cup resisted Harvot’s effort to bring the claim before a jury, arguing that WFMLA failed to provide an explicit or implicit right to a jury trial, and that the state constitution does not provide that right to vindicate claims foreign to 1848. The circuit court ruled in favor of Solo Cup, allowing Harvot to proceed with a bench trial. Harvot appealed.

The court of appeals noted that claimants are often afforded jury trials under the federal FMLA, but that the Wisconsin law is different. The court of appeals determined this question was one of first impression and certified the matter for supreme court review.

No implied statutory right

In a majority opinion authored by Justice David Prosser, the supreme court held the WFMLA – as well as any other statute lacking an express right to a jury trial – restricts civil litigants to a bench trial, unless that right is preserved by Article I, Section 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The court warned that it would “open a can of worms” if it began finding an implied right where the statute is silent and the constitution does not guarantee a jury trial.

“Statutes vary widely,” the court remarked. “Ad hoc judicial discovery of implied statutory rights to trial by jury would not yield a meaningful legal test that could carry over from case to case. It would instead invite ad hoc argument whenever the statutes are silent … If the legislature wants to provide a right to trial by jury in new causes of action, it has broad power to do so.”

But Justice Ann Walsh Bradley – joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson – wrote in dissent that the majority unsettles the law with its conclusion that the Legislature necessarily meant to give no jury trial when the statute is silent on the question.

Bradley noted that no jury trial right is stated in Wisconsin’s Lemon Law, Wis. Stat. § 218.0171. Yet, she observed, “Lemon Law cases have been tried to juries around the state for years.” Similarly, juries have heard actions brought under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, found in Wis. Stat. § 135.03, despite the absence of an express jury trial right.

“It is unclear how the majority’s sweeping pronouncement will affect the past judgments rendered and the future cases to be tried under Wisconsin’s Lemon Law and Fair Dealership Act,” Bradley wrote. “Can past judgments be challenged? Should future cases be tried to a jury? What role, if any, should advisory juries play?”

Bradley predicted “untold litigation attempting to answer the questions raised by the majority’s broad pronouncement.”

State law distinguished

The majority said that even if it were to recognize an implied right within a statute, Harvot failed to demonstrate one exists.

Harvot argued that the WFMLA contemplates a jury trial because it offers a court’s equitable relief, but also legal damages. Based on this distinction, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held the federal FMLA had an implied jury trial right in Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, 154 F. 3d 641 (6th Cir. 1998).

But the justices said that the FMLA is significantly different from the WFMLA, defeating the analogy. Whereas an employer may contest before a jury the threshold question of whether a FMLA violation even exists, an administrative agency finds violations of the WFMLA and the jury only considers damages. Further, the WFMLA does not share the FMLA’s clear exclusion of consequential and punitive damages.

In general, the court added, a right to jury trials is more readily found in federal statutes because the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is more broadly interpreted than Article I, Section 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Writing in dissent, Bradley said the remedy scheme, common to the WFMLA and the FMLA, should lead to the conclusion that the state statute contains an implied jury trial right. “Relying on the rationale of the federal courts, I determine that the creation of a separate cause of action for damages demonstrates that the legislature intended civil actions under the WFMLA to be tried by a jury,” she wrote.

Constitutional inquiry

The court began its analysis with its two-part test for finding whether the state constitution extends the jury trial right to a particular statutory cause of action.

“A party has a constitutional right to a jury ‘when: (1) the cause of action created by the statute existed, was known, or was recognized at common law at the time of the adoption of the Wisconsin Constitution in 1848 and (2) the action was regarded at law in 1848,’” the court stated, quoting Village Food & Liquor Mart v. H&S Petroleum, Inc., 2002 WI 92.

“Most of our disagreement in applying the Village Food test relates to the first prong,” the court said. The court recalled its earlier struggle in Village Food to decide that the common law unfair trade practices of “forestalling the market, regrating, and engrossing” were an antecedent for a violation of the minimum mark-up law for gasoline.

Dissenters in Village Food protested that comparing a modern statute to generalized classes of common law causes of action “renders the test a nullity.”

The court noted that its disagreements over the requisite degree of commonality between present and past causes of action continued in Dane County v. McGrew, 20005 WI 130, and State v. Schweda, 2007 WI 100. In McGrew, a majority concluded that the “laws of the road” from 1848 were “predecessors to the ‘rules of the road violations recognized today,” such as speeding. But a divided court determined that waste disposal regulations did not trace back to common law nuisance claims in Schweda.

Attempting to resolve the uncertainty of Village Food’s first prong, the justices announced that it will compare “the purpose underlying the modern statute to the purpose underlying its alleged common law counterpart.”

Employing its new standard, the court said that no cause of action in 1848 served the same purpose as the WFMLA, which is “intended to assist workers in handling conflicts between the demands of their work and the needs of their families.” This is “modern social legislation” that “was quite unheard of in 1848,” the court concluded.

In dissent, Bradley remarked that the majority’s new interpretative rule does not settle the fundamental dispute of “how broadly or narrowly to focus the lens when determining whether two causes of action are ‘counterparts.’”

“I predict that the majority’s addition of ‘similar purpose’ will lend no more consistency to our application of the Village Food test and instead adds but another layer of analysis,” she wrote.

Source

1.

Alex Simanovsky & Associates:

Idaho Lemon Law and Federal warranty law protect consumers from being stuck with “Lemon” automobiles, computer lemons and other defective consumer products. Get a Free Idaho Lemon Case Evaluation and Free Consultation from experienced consumer protection attorneys. If your car or computer is a Lemon, you may be entitled to your money back, a replacement or a cash settlement. So you have nothing to lose, except that Lemon!

Alex Simanovsky & Associates, LLC have successfully represented thousands of consumers. We have successfully obtained full refunds, vehicle and cash settlements for our clients without ever charging attorneys fees to the consumer!

please note:  When we say “FREE TO THE CONSUMER” we mean exactly that! While we don’t work for free, consumers will not be charged any attorney’s fees. We seek to recover our attorney’s fees from the manufacturer and/or dealer pursuant to State and Federal Laws.

Contact:
Alex Simanovsky & Associates, LLC
By Phone: 1-866-86-LEMON
By Fax: 1-877-216-0365
By E-Mail: idaho@autolemonlaws.com

Website: for more information click here

2.

Kurz & Fortas, LLC
The Lemon Laws are different in each state; you need an experienced Idaho Lemon Law lawyer to represent you. The attorneys at the Idaho law firm of Kurz & Fortas, LLC have handled thousands of Lemon Law cases involving all sorts of products, including cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, SUV’s, RV’s, boats, computers and other household appliances and consumer products. We know how to use the consumer protection laws in Idaho and the federal law to fight for your rights and YOU don’t pay any fees!* For a free consultation and review of your potential lemon call toll free 888-KO-LEMON (888-565-3666) or submit your information online now.

Contact:

421 W. Riverside Avenue
Suite 900
Spokane,  WA 99201

Please send all correspondence to Corporate Office
Corporate Office: 1932 North Druid Hills Road, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30319
OFFICE VISITS ARE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY PLEASE - CALL 888-KO-LEMON ext. 113

More listings coming soon..

=======================================================
Idaho Lemon Law Attorneys, Lemon Law Lawyers Idaho, List of Lemon lawyers Idaho, List of Lemon Attorneys Idaho

1.

HAWAII LEMON LAW LAWYERS

CONSUMER ACTION AND INFORMATION CENTER OF HAWAII
2300 Pauahi Tower
1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 528-5118
FAX: (808) 599-1881

More listing coming soon….

THE MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURER DUTIES
UNDER THE HAWAII LEMON LAW AND THE
STATE CERTIFIED ARBITRATION PROGRAM (SCAP)
This handbook provides important information concerning Hawaii’s Lemon Law and State Certified Arbitration Program (SCAP) to motor vehicle manufacturer representatives. You should read all of this handbook to fully understand your rights and responsibilities under the Lemon Law. You should also review the most current version of the Lemon Law itself, Chapter 481I, Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.), and the administrative rules which govern SCAP, Hawaii Administrative Rules (H.A.R.) Title 16, Chapter 181. If you need copies of these materials, please contact the SCAP Administrator, or you may print them out from our website at www.hawaii.gov/dcca/rico.

Download attached handbook in pdf format (119 kb)

CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER HAWAII’S LEMON LAW (70) (119 kb)

Source: www.hawaii.gov

For full story download Attached pdf

Lemon Law Handbook for Consumers (70) (156 kb)

==================================

Source: www.hawaii.gov

Consumer rights under Hawaii lemon law

download attached pdf

CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER HAWAII’S LEMON LAW (70) (26 kb)

===============================

Source: www.hawaii.gov

Fill this form for Election of consumers

Download attached PDF

Election of Consumer (62) (7 kb)

Source: www.hawaii.gov