§Why CasetextPricing

Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc., Appellant,v.General Motors LLC, Respondent.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State

    2006 WI 86 (Wis. 2006)   Cited 65 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc., 292 Wis. 2d 549, ¶¶14-15, we suggested that granting deference did not abandon our judicial power because we retained the authority to establish the guardrails within which the agency exercised that power.

  2. Teachers of Huntington v. Bd. of Educ

    33 N.Y.2d 229 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 124 times
    Finding that the fact that one party to a contract would be “the final judge” of whether another party “met the conditions necessary to receive the benefits of the agreement [did] not negate the existence of an enforceable contract right,” inasmuch as “[b]oth common law and statutory law recognize the existence of contractual obligations where either the satisfactory performance of one party or the existence of conditions precedent is left solely to the good faith judgment of the other party”

  3. BMW of North America, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board

    162 Cal.App.3d 980 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 55 times
    In BMW of North America, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 980, Hal Watkins (Watkins) claimed an exclusive right under his franchise agreement to sell BMW products in Ventura County.

  4. JJM Sunrise Auto., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.

    46 Misc. 3d 755 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Finding breach of good faith claim was not duplicative of breach of contract claim because breach of good faith claim contained allegations of wrongful conduct that were not alleged in breach of contact claim

  5. Bray v. Tejas Toyota, Inc.

    363 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    Noting importance of difference in adjacent statutory language

  6. Gentile v. State

    2011 WI App. 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    No. 2010AP2524. Submitted on briefs May 3, 2011. Decided May 24, 2011. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Racine County: EMILY S. MUELLER, Judge. Affirmed. On behalf of the petitioner-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Paul R. Norman and Eric A. Baker of Boardman, Suhr, Curry Field, LLP, Madison. On behalf of the interested party-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Thomas M. Devine and Anthony P. Hahn of Hostak, Henzl Bichler, S.C., Racine and Steven J

  7. Sims v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.

    2013 Ohio 2662 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    No. 12AP-833 C.P.C. No. 12CVF-04-4310 No. 12AP-835 C.P.C. No. 12CVF-04-4683 06-25-2013 William R. Sims et al., Appellants-Appellants, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Appellee-Appellee. Nissan North America, Inc., Appellant-Appellant, v. William R. Sims et al., Appellees-Appellees. Morganstern, MacAdams & DeVito Co., L.P.A., and Christopher M. DeVito, for appellants William R. Sims and Buick-GMC Truck, Inc. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Joseph C. Pickens and Steven C. Fitch; Dorsey & Whitney LLP

  8. Superior Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

    CASE NO. 08-10642 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2012)

    CASE NO. 08-10642 03-30-2012 SUPERIOR PONTIAC BUICK GMC, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a SUPERIOR NISSAN and WALTER J. SCHWARTZ, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. MARIANNE O. BATTANI HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI OPINION AND ORDER This matter came before the Court for a bench trial on September 7, 2011, and was concluded on November 21, 2011. In their complaint, Plaintiffs Superior Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc. ("Superior) and Walter Schwartz (collectively "Superior")

  9. Subaru Distributors Corp. v. Subaru of America

    47 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)   Cited 9 times

    No. 98 Civ. 5566(CM). April 5, 1999. Dale A. Schreiber, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz Mendelsohn, LLP, New York City, for Subaru Distributors Corp., plaintiff. Lewis A. Noonberg, Piper Marbury, Washington, DC, for Subaru of America, Inc., defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TO THE DEFENDANT McMAHON, District Judge. Underlying this application for a preliminary injunction

  10. Nissan North v. Royal Nissan

    794 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    No. 01-CA-113. May 30, 2001. Rehearing Denied August 6, 2001. APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 550-120, DIVISION "G" HONORABLE ROBERT A. PITRE, JUDGE PRESIDING. George Denegre, Jr., Shannon S. Holtzman, Liskow Lewis Law Firm, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Kevin A. Russel, Latham Watkins, Chicago, Illinois, Counsels for plaintiff-appellant. Herschel C. Adcock, Sr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for defendant-appellee. Court composed

  11. Section 463 - Unfair business practices by franchisors

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 463   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a franchisor may not "refuse to accept a return of" a terminated franchisee's inventory and must pay fair and reasonable compensation when repurchasing the inventory

  12. Section 320.641 - Discontinuations, cancellations, nonrenewals, modifications, and replacement of franchise agreements

    Fla. Stat. § 320.641   Cited 32 times
    Allowing a motor vehicle dealer whose franchise agreement is cancelled or not renewed to file a petition within 90 days for a determination whether such action was unfair or prohibited

  13. Section 218.0114 - [Effective 1/1/2025] Licenses, how granted; agreements, filing

    Wis. Stat. § 218.0114   Cited 6 times

    (1) No motor vehicle dealer, motor vehicle wholesaler, motor vehicle salesperson, motor vehicle buyer, or sales finance company may engage in business as a motor vehicle dealer, motor vehicle wholesaler, motor vehicle salesperson, motor vehicle buyer, or sales finance company in this state without a license therefor as provided in ss. 218.0101 to 218.0163. If any motor vehicle dealer acts as a motor vehicle salesperson, he or she shall secure a motor vehicle salesperson's license in addition to a

  14. Section 407.825 - Unlawful practices

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.825   Cited 5 times
    Prohibiting capricious conduct or conduct not done in good faith

  15. Section 10-1-663 - Advertising campaigns; change in capital structure or ownership; manner of distribution; increased prices; discrimination; unreasonable restrictions or changes

    Ga. Code § 10-1-663

    (a) No franchisor shall require, attempt to require, coerce, or attempt to coerce any dealer in this state: (1) To participate monetarily in an advertising campaign or contest or to purchase any promotional materials, training materials, showroom or other display decorations, or materials at the expense of the dealer; or (2) To change or refrain from changing the capital structure or ownership of the dealer or the means by or through which the dealer finances the operation of the dealership, provided