U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1967

Berry Brothers Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation (Buick Motor Division)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided May 29, 1967 · Staley, Kalodner, Smith

377 F.2d 552; 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6192; 1967 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,111 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George Scott Stewart, III, Philadelphia, Pa. (Gross & Stewart, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant., W. Bradley Ward, Philadelphia, Pa. (Thomas B. Rutter, Philadelphia, Pa., Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Food Fair, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1981)
In re Food Fair, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1981)
H. C. Blackwell Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Kenworth Truck Company, a Division of Paccar, Inc., a Corporation (5th Cir. 1980)
Chinetti-Garthwaite Imports, Inc. v. Ferrari Societa Per Azioni Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili E Corse (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1978)
Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, and Donald E. Fray v. General Motors Corporation (6th Cir. 1976)
Kirkland v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
Kaiser v. General Motors Corp.(Pontiac Motor Div.) (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

On review of the record we are of the opinion that the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, General Motors Corporation (Buick Motor Division), 1 in this action by Berry Brothers Buick, Inc., under the so-called Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act, 2 which was premised on the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant did not act in “good faith”, as that term is defined in the statute, in failing to renew its sales agency fran *553 chise at the expiration of its term. See Globe Motors, Inc. v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 328 F.2d 645 (3 Cir. 1964); Garvin v. American Motor Sales Corporation, 318 F.2d 518 (3 Cir. 1963).

The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.

. 257 F.Supp. 542 (E.D.Pa. 1966).

. 15 U.S.O.A. §§ 1221-1225.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.