Legal Opinion
Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Board
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided February 27, 1997No. Nos. 96APE02-247, 96APE02-248 and 96APE04-478PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
John C. Young, Judge.
This appeal involves three consolidated cases. The history of these cases is as follows: In 1972, Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (“Artz”) entered into a sales and service agreement (“agreement”). In 1980, R.C. 4517.50 was enacted as part of the Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Act (“Act”). R.C. 4517.50 provides that a dealer may protest a planned relocation of another dealer, if such relocation is in the same relevant market area as the protesting dealer.
In 1990, Ford informed Artz that it intended to relocate K & B Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (“K &…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- University of Cincinnati v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- University Hospital v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Angelkovski v. Buckeye Potato Chips Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
- Hartzog v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
- State, Ex Rel. Lawrence Development Co. v. WeirOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Total Office Prod. v. Dept. Admin. Srvs., Unpublished Decision (6-29-2006)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Bob Tatone Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999