Legal Opinion

Lloyd Design Corp. v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 10, 1998No. B110185PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BOREN, P. J.

A distributor in one of this state’s most competitive fields —automobile sales—decided to include floor mats as standard equipment in its vehicles to compete with other car manufacturers which offer standard floor mats and to satisfy a perceived consumer demand for increasing levels of comfort and convenience in new automobiles. A floor mat manufacturer sued under the Cartwright Act, claiming that it was financially damaged because floor mats did not remain an optional accessory. We find no violation of California antitrust law and affirm the judgment in favor of the car…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Chicago Title Insurance v. Great Western Financial Corp.California Supreme Court · 1968

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Roman v. Bre Properties, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Wachovia Bank v. LIFETIME INDUSTRIES, INC.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Dang v. San Francisco Forty NinersDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API