Legal Opinion
East Bay Running Store, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided January 25, 1990No. 88-2011PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
In the appeal of this diversity action, we are asked to interpret the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, Wis.Stat. §§ 135.01 et seq, (WFDL). East Bay Running Store, Inc., a retailer of athletic shoes and associated apparel, commenced an action against NIKE, Inc. alleging a violation of §§ 135.03 and 135.04 of the WFDL. Specifically, East Bay claimed that NIKE’s decision to prohibit the sale of NIKE AIR products by mail or telephone altered the terms of East Bay’s dealership agreement with NIKE. NIKE moved for summary judgment claiming that the restriction did not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bush v. National School Studios, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Ralph Remus and Ralph's Standard, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Amoco Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Services, Inc., Plaintiffs- Counterdefendants-Appellees v. Walgreen Company, Defendant-Counterplaintiff-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Ziegler Co., Inc. v. RexnordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
- St. Joseph Equipment v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Morley-Murphy Co. v. Zenith Electronics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1999
- Re/max North Central, Inc. v. Patricia Cook, F/d/b/a Re/max Lake and CountryCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.