Spencer v. Wilsey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that shareholders “were so inextricably woven into” franchise agreement that they could assert ADDCA claim
• permitting two individuals who were sole shareholders, officers, and directors of dealer to sue under ADDCA where those individuals were “inextricably woven” into the franchise agreement and “made essential to the operation of the dealership” by the terms of the agreement
• individuals’ roles as stockholders, officers, or directors of corporate franchise holder do not place them within the scope of ADDCA
• “We believe that [plaintiffs] were made essential to operation of the dealership by the agreement with [defendant].”
• “[T]hat Chrysler Motors may have had grounds for lawful termination of the automobile dealership does not permit this court to set aside a jury verdict____ The [ADDCA] is not as concerned with what the parties did as it is concerned with why they did it”
• \[T]hat Chrysler Motors may have had grounds for lawful termination of the automobile dealership does not permit this court to set aside a jury verdict. . . . The[ADDCA] is not as concerned with what the parties did as it is concerned with why they did it.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).