George L. Stansifer, Dba Lakewood Sports Cars v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, and J. O. Fisher Corporation (Jim Fisher Motors)’s Empirical Analysis
487 F.2d 59 · 1973
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably British Airways Board v. Boeing Co. (1978), William Radobenko and Mary G. Radobenko, His Wife, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Automated Equipment Corporation, a California Corporation (1975)
56 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1221 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1222 (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · In re Whittington · United States v. Western Electric Co. · Volkswagen Interamericana, S.A. v. Rohlsen
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(s)ummary judgment . . . is proper only where there is no genuine issue of any material fact or where reviewing the evidence and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the adverse party, the movant is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the written agreement or contract between any automobile manufacturer engaged in commerce and any automobile dealer which purports to fix the legal rights and liabilities of the parties to such agreement or contract.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Cancel, or, fail to renew the franchise or selling agreement of any vehicle dealer doing business in this state without fairly compensating the dealer at a fair going business value for his capital investment which shall include but not be limited to tools, equipment, and parts inventory, possessed by the dealer on the day he is notified of such cancellation or termination and which are still within the dealer’s possession on the day the cancellation or termination is effective, if: (1) The capital investment shall have been entered into with reasonable and prudent business judgment for the purpose of fulfilling the franchise; and (2) Said cancellation or nonrenewal was not done in good faith. . . . [Emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.