Legal Opinion
In Re Van Ness Auto Plaza, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California
Decided October 26, 1990No. 14-31181PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
THOMAS E. CARLSON, Bankruptcy Judge.
Debtor, an automobile dealer, moved to assume and assign a Porsche franchise. California state law, applicable via 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1), provides that such a franchise may be assigned only with the consent of the manufacturer, but that such consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. The principal question raised in this proceeding is the legal standard upon which the reasonableness of a manufacturer’s withholding consent is to be judged. I conclude that withholding consent is reasonable if it is based on factors related to the proposed assignee’s…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
- Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- In Re Pioneer Ford Sales, Inc. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
- Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932
- Thurman v. Meridian Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Midwest Automotive III, LLC v. Iowa Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Iowa · 2002
- Ford Motor Co. v. Claremont Acquisition Corp. (In Re Claremont Acquisition Corp.)District Court, C.D. California · 1995
- Heritage Jeep-Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1995
- Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.