Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Indianapolis Indiana AAMCO Dealers Advertising Pool

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 14, 1997No. 48A02-9602-CV-105PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BAKER, Judge.

Appellants-defendants Joseph Anderson and Mark Haines appeal a judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff the Indianapolis, Indiana, AAMCO Dealer’s Advertising Pool (Ad Pool) on its claim for breach of contract. Anderson and Haines contend that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the Ad Pool because the contract on which it sued violated the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Act (Franchise Act). Further, Anderson and Haines argue that the contract was unenforceable because it was not signed by all of the parties, was induced by fraud and was not fully…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'nIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Norlund v. FaustIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. City of Indianapolis v. Twin Lakes Enterprises, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Biberstine v. New York Blower Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Robinson v. GlassIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
  2. McKinney v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Wells v. Stone City BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Wallem v. CLS Industries, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API