Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
CONSUMER PROTECTION — LEMON LAW 01-CMA-2813 Reilly v. Ford Motor Corp., OAL (Hayden, A.L.J.) (15 pp. — includes initial decision by the A.L.J. and final decision by Erdos, Dir.) Despite the respondent’s argument that the petitioner refused to avail himself of the last-chance repair offered by the dealership, the director agrees with the administrative law judge’s conclusion that the service manager did not offer a last-chance repair attempt due to the lemon law last-chance letter he had received; further, respondent failed to show, by objective evidence, that the excessive noise complained of in petitioner’s 2002 Ford Mustang GT did not substantially impair the use, safety or value of the vehicle. [Initial decision decided Jan. 10, 2003.] [Final decision dated Jan. 31, 2003.] PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — WORKING TEST PERIOD 01-CSV-2814 I/M/O Geis, OAL (LaFiandra, A.L.J.) (16 pp. — includes initial decision by the A.L.J. and final decision by Howard, Presiding Bd. Member) The administrative law judge found that the petitioner was released at the end of his working test period as a firefighter in good faith, based on the appointing authority’s legitimate concerns, in reliance on two psychological reports, that petitioner had neuropsychiatric problems that might affect his ability to function as a firefighter. Although the Merit System Board accepts and adopts the ALJ’s findings of fact, it does not adopt her position that the appointing authority’s action in releasing appellant was justified. Rather, the board finds that petitioner performed satisfactorily during the working test period, and, but for the two psychological evaluations, there would have been no basis to release him. The board orders that the petitioner be granted permanent status. [Initial decision decided Aug. 29, 2002.] [Final decision dated Nov. 20, 2002.]

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.