Legal Opinion
Pinney & Topliff v. Chrysler Corporation
District Court, S.D. California
Decided September 17, 1959No. 850-58PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
YANKWICH, District Judge.
In this case we are to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover under a Complaint seeking damages for fraud, either actual or constructive, or deceit, 1 or, in the alternative, on the theory of promissory estoppel, 2 or under the federal Automobile Dealers Act. 3
At the request of the parties the Court has agreed to try the separate “issue” of liability first. 4 So the question of damages is not at present before the Court.
As is evident, two of the remaining causes of action are brought under State law, the third under Federal law. While the same amount…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Angel v. BullingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
- B. T. Woodard and B. J. Woodard, D/B/A Woodard Motor Company v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, and Donald E. Fray v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
- FCC National Bank v. Gilmore (In Re Gilmore)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 1998
- Pierce Ford Sales, Inc., and Elmer W. Bemis, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.