George Lussier Enterprises, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• conditioning car dealers’ access to vehicles on acceptance of distributors’ conditions “does not amount to a wrongful demand to constitute a component of coercion”
• a manufacturer’s conditioning of access to vehicles beyond the 18 The parties do not dispute that HMA meets the definition of manufacturer, which includes corporations involved with distribution. 15 U.S.C. § 1221(a
• “Plaintiffs may not succeed by merely proving that the predicate acts were a ‘cause in fact’ of the plaintiffs’ injuries; rather, Section 1964(c) requires that the defendant’s specified acts of racketeering were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.”
• “to state a claim . . . [i]t is enough that dealers offer evidence that the manufacturer or distributor made a wrongful demand coupled with threats of sanctions, such as withholding vehicles that dealers are legally entitled to receive. . . .

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).