Cases

371 F.Supp. 1238 (1974) Dominic P. DeCANTIS v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC. Civ. A. No. 73-376-R. United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 19, 1974. *1239 Walter H. Emroch, Emroch & Hotze, Richmond, Va., for plaintiff. Robert H. Patterson, Jr., W. Carter Younger, J. Robert Bra

415 F.Supp.2d 666 (2006) TURNPIKE FORD, INC., Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Defendants. No. 2:05 CV 00398. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. February 22, 2006. *667 John K. Cecil, The Tinney Law Firm, John H. Tinney, Jr., The Tinney Law Firm, Kimberly R. Field

Agnes, Peter W., J. Surabian Really Co., Inc. (Sur-abian) filed this action for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive acts and practices against NGM Insurance Company (NGM), for wrongful denial of coverage under Surabian’s businessowners insurance policy for property damage sustained to its premises. On October 12, 2010, NGM filed a motion for summary judgment declaring that the NGM policy issued does not afford coverage for

Perretta, J. This appeal concerns a decision of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (commission) in which it concluded on the evidence before it that the Brown-Forman Corporation (Brown-Forman) was required by G. L. c. 138, *499§ 25E, to make regular sales of certain alcoholic beverage products to M.S. Walker, Inc. (Walker), a Massachusetts wholesaler of alcoholic

McKAY, Circuit Judge. We have granted Ford Motor Company’s petition for rehearing because we may have understated a significant element of the case. While we believe some clarification of our prior opinion1 is in order, except as clarified herein our prior opinion with respect to the dispute between Ford Motor Company and Colonial is reaffirmed. We also have granted Colonial Ford, Inc.’s petiti

592 F.2d 1126 51 A.L.R.Fed. 805, 1979-1 Trade Cases 62,455 COLONIAL FORD, INC., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,Cross-Appellant,v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant,andFord Motor Credit Company, a Delaware Corporation,Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. Nos. 76-2079, 76-2080 and 76-2083. United States Court

622 F.Supp. 466 (1984) NORTH BROADWAY MOTORS, INC., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. FIAT MOTORS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant. No. 84 C 2007. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. September 4, 1984. *467 Richard H. Balog, Shearer, Blood, Agrella, Boose & Balog, St. Charles, Ill.,

627 F.Supp. 1202 (1986) EMPIRE VOLKSWAGEN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP., Defendant. No. 81 Civ. 5038 (SWK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 24, 1986. As Amended February 27, 1986. *1203 *1204 *1205<

MEMORANDUM OPINION TURK, Chief Judge. Plaintiff, a sole proprietor operating an automobile dealership in Martinsville, Virginia, instituted this action against defendants on June 14, 1982, alleging that they violated the Virginia Retail Franchising Act, Va.Code § 13.1-557 to 13.1-574 (“VRFA”) in connection with incidents that occurred between May 9, 1978 and January 31, 1979. Defendant S

403 F.Supp. 123 (1975) GRAPPONE, INC. v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and Subaru of New England, Inc. Civ. A. No. 74-119. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. November 12, 1975. *124 *125 *126 Howard B. Myers, Ingram & Myers, Hanover, N.H., for p

601 F.2d 429 1979-2 Trade Cases 62,784 Gary H. SHERMAN and Vincent Imports, Inc., doing business asEuropean Motors, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees.v.BRITISH LEYLAND MOTORS, LTD., Leyland Motor Sales, Inc.,British Leyland Motors, Inc., British Motor CarDistributors, Ltd., and Peter SatoriCompany, Ltd.,Defendants-AppelleesandCross-Appellants. Nos.

CHRISTENSEN, District Judge: This is an action for alleged violations of the federal Automobile Dealers’ Day in *434Court Act,1 and the antitrust laws,2 and on pendent state claims.3 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Presented by p