Morley-Murphy Co. v. Zenith Electronics Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Ziegler allowed proportionate change to an “objectively ascertainable need” if applied non-discriminatorily
• finding that a grantor who had been operating in losses for nine out of ten years with hundreds of millions of dollars in losses had demonstrated an objectively ascertainable need for change
• construing Wisconsin dealer law not to reach activities outside the state to avoid Commerce Clause questions
• discussing Ziegler Co. v. 9 Plaintiff concedes as much in its opposition brief and its reply in support of its own motion for summary judgment. (Pl.’s Opp’n (dkt. #41) 11 (“[T]here is a dispute as to the material fact of when the termination of the dealership occurred.”
• state courts are “well aware that the Supreme Court has held that certain assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction violate the dormant Commerce Clause.”
• “state courts are no more in the habit of construing legislation in a way that would violate constitutional limitations than federal courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).