DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 637 A.2d 148.

13 citing documents.

  • Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. 891 A.2d 477 N.H. 2005
    Torres, 949 P.2d at 1014; RSA 382-A:2-313 comment 3; see Chellman v. Saab-Scandia AB, 138 N.H. 73, 82 (1993) (recognizing whether advertising creates an express warranty is a question for the jury)- We adopt the intermediate approach when deciding whether representations in a catalog or brochure constitute part of the basis of the bargain in a breach of express warranty claim.
  • Nilsson v. Bierman 839 A.2d 25 N.H. 2003
    D. Chellman v. Saab-Seania The defendant mistakenly relies upon Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 81 (1993).
  • Explained Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc. 784 A.2d 1178 N.H. 2001
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 77 (1993).
  • Francoeur v. Piper 776 A.2d 1270 N.H. 2001
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 80 (1993); Kallgren v. Chadwick, 134 N.H. 110, 117 (1991).
  • Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 761 A.2d 477 N.H. 2000
    Furthermore, we have previously recognized that an enhanced injury theory “may be applicable in a products liability action against a manufacturer.” Cusson v. Beauregard, 143 N.H. 410, 412, 727 A.2d 979, 981 (1999); cf. Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 76, 637 A.2d 148, 152 (1993) (recognizing defective design claim against automobile manufacturer due to, inter alia, driver-side door opening during rollover).
  • Powell v. Catholic Medical Center 749 A.2d 301 N.H. 2000
    “We review jury instructions in context and will not reverse unless the charge, taken in its entirety, fails to adequately explain the law applicable to the case so that the jury could have been misled.” Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 79, 637 A.2d 148, 151 (1993).
  • Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 744 A.2d 625 N.H. 1999
    “We review jury instructions in context and will not reverse unless the charge, taken in its entirety, fails to adequately explain the law applicable to the case so that the jury could have been misled.” Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 79, 637 A.2d 148, 151 (1993).
  • Appeal of the New England Heart Institute & Maine Medical Center 746 A.2d 990 N.H. 1999
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 80, 637 A.2d 148, 152 (1993).
  • Meaney v. Rubega 703 A.2d 1384 N.H. 1997
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 79, 637 A.2d 148, 151 (1993).
  • Price v. BIC Corp. 702 A.2d 330 N.H. 1997
    See, e.g., LeBlanc v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 141 N.H. 579, 585-86, 688 A.2d 556, 561-62 (1997); Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 77, 637 A.2d 148, 150 (1993); Reid v. Spadone Mach.
  • LeBlanc v. American Honda Motor Co. 688 A.2d 556 N.H. 1997
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 77, 637 A.2d 148, 150 (1993).
  • Prime Financial Group, Inc. v. Masters 676 A.2d 528 N.H. 1996
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 79-80, 637 A.2d 148, 151-52 (1993).
  • Cyr v. J.I. Case Co. 652 A.2d 685 N.H. 1994
    Chellman v. Saab-Scania AB, 138 N.H. 73, 82, 637 A.2d 148, 153 (1993).