Moore v. Tandy Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
819 F.2d 820 · 1987
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Lauritzen (1987), 146 Wis. 2d 568 - Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. D-Mart Food Stores, Inc. (1988)
23 federal appellate · 3 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 99 Wis. 2d 746 - Kania v. Airborne Freight Corp. · Grand Light & Supply Co. v. Honeywell, Inc. · 105 Wis. 2d 17 - Foerster, Inc. v. Atlas Metal Parts Co. · City of Clinton v. Moffitt · Remus v. Amoco Oil Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he investment that turns an employee into a dealer by creating a community of interest between him and his supplier must be the kind of investment that involves a risk of, or temptation to, opportunistic behavior by the supplier. * * * * * * Moore did not make the kind of investment that dealers customarily make and that places the dealer in the supplier’s power and thereby provides the principal rationale for the Wisconsin statute. It was not an investment sunk in specialized resources (such as a store’s interior) which would be worth less in another use. “Such investments,” we read in an opinion that is very much in the spirit of our analysis, “often cannot be liquidated except on terms which are unfair to dealers and which sometimes unjustly enrich dealership grantors. Similarly, a heavy ‘front-end’ dealer investment in advertising might qualify for WFDL [Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law] protection because the dealer might otherwise be unjustly deprived of a return on that investment if the venture is successful. The [Wisconsin law] protects dealers who risk their investments along with the manufacturers.” Aida Engineering, Inc. v. Red Stag, Inc., 629 F.Supp. 1121, 1126 (E.D.Wis.1986). ****** But Moore’s was an investment whose value was fixed, protected, and recoverable with only modest delay. It was not an investment in advertising materials that would become worthless if he ceased to sell the advertiser’s goods. His investment was not at risk (except in the sense that ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n a close case our policy is to defer to the district judge's interpretation of the law in the state in which the judge sits....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The description of the businesses which the Fair Dealership Law was intended to cover indicates that the law was meant to protect only those small businessmen who make a substantial investment in inventory, physical facilities or “good will” as part of their association with the grantor of the dealership and is, thus, consistent with the common or accepted perceptions of the words franchise or dealership.”
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.