Franklin Tractor Sales v. New Holland North America, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
QUIST, District Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant in this diversity action, Franklin Tractor Sales (“Franklin Tractor”), brought a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship against DefendantnAppellee, New Holland North America, Inc. (“New Holland”). The district court granted summary judgment for New Holland. Franklin Tractor appeals. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court’s ruling.
FACTS
New Holland is a manufacturer of construction equipment. Under a series of agreements with New Holland, Franklin Tractor was for many years a dealer of New Holland’s equipment.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James StephensCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & HaddenOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Central Ohio Building & Construction Trades CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Darryl Hines v. Barbara LanghenryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
- Taylor Building Corp. of America v. BenfieldDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007
- Wagner-Smith Co. v. Ruscilli Construction Co., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division2006
- Antioch Co. Litigation Trust v. Morgan (In Re Antioch Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2011
- Atlas Industrial Contractors LLC v. In2Gro Technologies LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.