Texas ยท published proceedings

Published Texas lemon law decisions

What the state's hearing examiners actually decided, across every decision TxDMV publishes: 866 of them, each linking its own source document. Browse by what was decided, or by the manufacturer the complaint was against.

What this dataset is

This is every lemon law proceeding TxDMV's Office of Administrative Hearings publishes for case-years 2014-2026: 867 published documents, holding 866 distinct decisions. Those two numbers differ because one decision is published twice, under two filenames; every count on this site counts each decision once.

Dismissal is the most common outcome here (58% of these decisions) and does not mean the underlying complaint was meritless. It also does not always mean what the source document's wording suggests: TxDMV orders frequently dismiss a repurchase petition and then separately order the manufacturer to repair the vehicle. Those are counted as Repair ordered, not as dismissals, because relief was granted. The 499 decisions under Dismissed are the ones where no relief was ordered. This site records what each order granted or refused, and deliberately does not characterize the legal test an examiner applied, in either direction.

What these counts are, and what they are not

This is not a census of Texas lemon vehicles, and no number on this page is a defect rate. Confidential settlements, manufacturer buybacks agreed before a hearing, and complaints withdrawn along the way never enter this corpus at all and are structurally invisible to it. What is counted here is contested proceedings that reached a published decision, which is a small and non-random slice of everything that goes wrong with a vehicle in Texas.

A manufacturer with more decisions here is not "more of a lemon" than one with fewer. It may simply have sold far more units in Texas, or its owners may be likelier to push a dispute to a contested hearing rather than settle. There is no sales or registration denominator behind these counts, so the division that would turn them into a rate cannot be done, and this site does not publish one.

Browse the record

Every record lives on one of these pages, listed newest decision first, each linking the PDF it was read from.

Manufacturers with their own page

A manufacturer gets a dedicated page once 20 or more published decisions name it. 15 of the 65 manufacturers in this corpus clear that today. The threshold is applied to the data on every build, so a page appears when a manufacturer crosses it and retires if the picture changes; nothing here is a hand-maintained list.

Decisions by manufacturer

65 distinct

Counts of published proceedings per manufacturer, never defect rates. Share is the manufacturer's share of these 866 decisions, not a share of vehicles sold or of vehicles that failed. Recreational-vehicle brands are grouped into the corporate family that owns them, because the source documents name them inconsistently (the same company is printed as "Keystone" in one order and "Keystone RV" in the next); where a row combines brands, the brands are listed under it as the documents print them. Passenger-car makes are deliberately not rolled up: Chevrolet is counted as Chevrolet, not as General Motors.

ManufacturerDecisionsShare
Ford14416.6%
Chevrolet687.9%
Thor Industries
Includes Keystone (16), Jayco (8), Heartland (7), Dutchmen (6), CrossRoads RV (5), Thor Motor Coach (5), DRV (4), KZ Recreational Vehicles (4), Tiffin Motorhomes (3), Cruiser RV (1), Entegra Coach (1), Highland Ridge (1), Thor (1), Thor Livin' Lite (1)
637.3%
Forest River
Includes Forest River (35), Coachmen (13), Shasta (3), Rockwood (2), Dynamax (1), Palomino (1), Prime Time (1)
566.5%
Nissan424.8%
Honda414.7%
Dodge333.8%
BMW303.5%
Jeep303.5%
Land Rover303.5%
GMC263.0%
Hyundai263.0%
Volkswagen222.5%
Kia212.4%
Toyota212.4%
Cadillac182.1%
Tesla182.1%
Audi151.7%
Ram111.3%
Lexus101.2%
Mercedes-Benz101.2%
Winnebago Industries
Includes Winnebago (5), Newmar (4), Grand Design (1)
101.2%
Infiniti80.9%
Jaguar80.9%
Lincoln80.9%
Volvo80.9%
Acura70.8%
Chrysler70.8%
Buick50.6%
Genesis50.6%
Subaru50.6%
Bennche40.5%
Gulf Stream Coach40.5%
REV Recreation Group
Includes REV Recreation Group (2), Holiday Rambler (1), Renegade (1)
40.5%
Hisun30.3%
Mazda30.3%
Mitsubishi30.3%
Polaris30.3%
Porsche30.3%
Alfa Romeo20.2%
Aston Martin20.2%
Black Series20.2%
Fiat20.2%
Harley-Davidson20.2%
Massimo20.2%
MINI20.2%
Alliance RV10.1%
Bashan10.1%
Bison10.1%
Blue Bird10.1%
Can-Am10.1%
Foretravel10.1%
IceBear10.1%
inTech RV10.1%
Kawasaki10.1%
Maserati10.1%
Polestar10.1%
Roadtrek10.1%
Scion10.1%
Suzuki10.1%
Tao10.1%
Thoroughbred Motors10.1%
Tribe10.1%
Xtreme Outdoors10.1%
Zero Motorcycles10.1%

Decisions by vehicle model year

17 distinct

The model year of the vehicle at issue, not the year the decision issued. A vehicle year appears here only if a decision about it was published.

Model yearDecisionsShare
202530.3%
2024293.3%
2023576.6%
2022728.3%
2021455.2%
2020536.1%
2019566.5%
2018768.8%
2017799.1%
20168710.0%
201510412.0%
20149911.4%
2013708.1%
2012222.5%
201170.8%
201020.2%
200910.1%
How this dataset was built

Extracted from all 867 published documents on 2026-08-24; extraction method and measured error rate per the 2026-08-17 audit of a 50-document systematic sample. Each record was read directly from its source PDF, coded against a fixed outcome taxonomy, and privacy-swept before publication. Most documents from case-year 2020 onward carry a text layer and were read from it; earlier ones are scanned images and were read visually, page by page, the way the audit's sample was. Every document was checked individually rather than assumed from its year, because the split is not absolute. Where the two methods disagreed, the visual read governed.

The audit's 53 hand-checked records were re-extracted blind in this run and used as a check set: outcome codes agreed on 53 of 53, decision dates on 53 of 53, and respondent manufacturers on 53 of 53. This is factual case-record data, a record of what published public documents say rather than a statement of what the law requires, so under this site's own rules it publishes on the strength of its audit rather than through the verification standard that governs statements of law. The full methodology, the extraction-error measurement, and the complete selection-bias write-up are recorded in that audit, which is an internal document; ask us if you want to see how a figure was reached.