Randy's Studebaker Sales, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 510 · 1976
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1979), May Marine Supply Company v. Brunswick Corporation (1981)
42 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1221 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1222 (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Patterson v. United States · United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. · United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co. · Williams v. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force, Et Al.
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““to act in a fair and equitable manner ... to guarantee ... freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation ... Provided, That recommendation, endorsement, exposition, persuasion, urging or argument shall not be deemed to constitute lack of good faith.” (Emphasis in original.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“gives to an automobile dealer a federal cause of action against an automobile manufacturer who fails to act in good faith in performing or complying with any terms of the franchise agreement....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus, a manufacturer who refuses -to renew a franchise is not guilty of lack of good faith where the dealer has failed to comply with the franchise terms for a long period of time. Nor in the case of one who has had sub-standard sales performance. Or if the- dealer should have inadequate financial resources, termination of the franchise is not in bad faith. Elimination of a dealer who has sold its manufacturer-approved location and seeks to move to a location not in keeping with the manufacturer’s metropolitan planning does not establish a lack of good faith on the part of the manufacturer. And where the dealer refuses to take all of the manufacturer’s line of cars, choosing instead to continue to deal in competitor cars, lack of good faith is not shown by refusal to renew the franchise.” (Footnotes omitted) 533 F.2d at 515 .”
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.