Chrysler Corporation v. Kolosso Auto Sales, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the challenged law “was in the direct path of the plausible . . . evolution of Wisconsin’s program for regulating automobile dealership contracts”
• concluding that the challenged law “was in the direct path of the plausible . . . evolution of Wisconsin’s program for regulating automobile dealership contracts”
• highlighting that the plaintiff “should have known . . . that it did not have a solid right to prevent a dealer from changing the location of the dealership”
• noting that past regulation of some aspects of commercial activity does not “put the regulated firm on notice that an entirely different scheme of regulation will be imposed”
• highlighting that the plaintiff “should have known . . . that it did not have a solid right to prevent a dealer from changing the location of the dealership”
• “[W]hat was foreseeable then will have been taken into account in the negotiations, over the terms of the contract;”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).