Don Marquis v. Chrysler Corporation, Don Marquis v. Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation, Don Marquis v. Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Realty Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 624 · 1978
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp. (1985), 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr (1983)
63 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 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
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Patterson v. United States · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for business reasons which are sufficient to the manufacturer in the absence of any arrangement restraining trade.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the substance of the applicable law was fairly and correctly covered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davarpanah v. Jc Penney Company Davarpanah · Pavarneh Davarpanah v. J.C. Penney Company, (Two Cases) Pavarneh Davarpanah Sunny Patten Beverly A. Lindblad, and Eileen Glass v. J.C. Penney Company, Eileen Glass Beverly A. Lindblad Sunny Patten v. J.C. Penney Company, Pavarneh Davarpanah Beverly A. Lindblad Sunny Patten v. J.C. Penney Company““We think that Chrysler Motors breached the statutory duty of good faith. Rather than enforcing the MSR as written or adjusting it to excuse periods of sub-MSR sales, it permitted Marquis to continue in business with sales below MSR. Then, when it suited Chrysler Motors’ purposes, it demanded compliance with MSR post facto and, pointing to the dealership history of sub-MSR sales, terminated the franchise. “The jury considered the motivation, timing and manner of termination to be intimidating and coercive in light of all the facts and circumstances. Chrysler Motors’ conduct in this case was precisely the kind of intimidating and overbearing manufacturer conduct that the Act was designed to proscribe.” 577 F.2d at 635 .”
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.