Legal Opinion
American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 16, 1986No. B013980PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LUCAS, J.
American Isuzu appeals from judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) We affirm.
I
Facts
In November 1983, American Isuzu notified Ray Fladeboe Isuzu of its intention to terminate Fladeboe’s Isuzu franchise. The notice of termination set forth the specific grounds for termination, as required by Vehicle Code section 3060: “You have failed to maintain the authorized facility for the sale of Isuzu products open for business and have attempted to conduct your dealership operations from a facility other than the one authorized by the Isuzu Dealer…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Peters v. KiffSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- American Motors Sales Corp. v. NEW MOTOR VEH. BD.California Court of Appeal · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gai v. City of SelmaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Burrell v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd. v. New Motor Vehicle BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Automotive Management Group, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Gray v. City of GustineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.