U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1977

Minson Plymouth, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 31, 1977 · Russell, Field, Hall

554 F.2d 1266; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14039 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

James F. Pascal, Richmond, Va. (Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant., R. Kenneth Wheeler, Richmond, Va. (Douglas W. Davis, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision. The 10 that cite it most often are listed here.

McKinney Dodge Chrysler Jeep Inc v. Mazda Motor of America Inc (District Court, D. South Carolina 2022)
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. (District Court, D. Maryland 1996)
Pearson v. Ford Motor Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1994)
Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc. (4th Cir. 1986)
Cabriolet Porsche Audi, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (11th Cir. 1985)
Cabriolet Porsche Audi, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co. (11th Cir. 1985)
Frank Meador Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (In re Frank Meador Buick, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia 1981)
Bob Maxfield, Inc. v. American Motors Corp. (5th Cir. 1981)
Francis Chevrolet Company v. General Motors Corporation (8th Cir. 1979)
Chinetti-Garthwaite Imports, Inc. v. Ferrari Societa Per Azioni Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili E Corse (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1978)

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

PER CURIAM:

In February of 1971 the plaintiff Minson Plymouth, Inc., commenced business as a Plymouth automobile dealer in Hopewell, *1267 Virginia, under a Direct Dealer Agreement with the defendant Chrysler Motors Corporation. The dealership progressed reasonably well until February of 1973 when George Minson, the President and Manager of the plaintiff corporation, was advised by a physician that he had a serious heart condition and should get out of the automobile business. Thereafter, Minson attempted to effect a “concurrent termination” of the dealership by selling it as a going business to a buyer who would be approved by Chrysler. Minson sought to negotiate such a sale, but in June of 1973 was advised by Chrysler that it no longer desired to continue a dealership in Hopewell selling only Plymouth products. Contending that Chrysler’s conduct violated the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1221-1225 as well as Virginia Code § 13.-1-564, Minson instituted this action. At the conclusion of the evidence the district court directed a verdict in favor of Chrysler and Minson has appealed.

It is now well settled that in the absence of coercion, intimidation or threats thereof, there can be no recovery under the federal statute. Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 536 F.2d 683 (6 Cir. 1976); Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Ltd., 519 F.2d 119 (6 Cir. 1975). Since the termination was initiated by Minson, we agree with the district judge that Chrysler’s decision to discontinue a “Plymouth only” dealership in Hopewell was not violative of the day-in-court Act. Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the scope of the Virginia statute is no broader than the federal Act and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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