Berry Bros. Buick, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp. (Buick Motor Div.), 377 F.2d 552 (3rd Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Berry Bros. Buick, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp. (Buick Motor Div.), 377 F.2d 552 (3rd Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hubbard Chevrolet Co. v. General Motors Corp. (mssd, 1987-10-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Hubbard Chevrolet Co. v. General Motors Corp.
S.D. Miss. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Berry Brothers Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. (Buick Motor Division), 257 F.Supp. 542 *877 (D.C.Pa.1966), aff'd, 377 F.2d 552 (3rd Cir.1967).
cited Cited "see" Commercial Union Insurance v. Pittsburgh Corning
E.D. Pa. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107 v. Roadway Express, Inc., 266 F.Supp. 868, 869-70 (E.D.Pa.1966), affd, 377 F.2d 552 (3d Cir.1967) (citations omitted).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Frank Chevrolet Co. v. General Motors Corp.
N.D. Ohio · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Berry Brothers Buick, supra, in which summary judgment in an action brought by a dealer under Section 1222 has recently been affirmed. 377 F.2d 552 (3rd Cir. 1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BERRY BROTHERS BUICK, INC., Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (BUICK MOTOR DIVISION)
16260_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 29, 1967.
377 F.2d 552
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.
Staley, Kalodner, Smith.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

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.

1

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

2

. 15 U.S.O.A. §§ 1221-1225.