Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Arnold Pontiac-Gmc, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 1, 1986No. 85-3108Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBecker, Circuit Judge
I join in all of the majority’s opinion and judgment except for its disposition of the Sherman Act § 1 Buick franchise claim and the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act GMC truck delivery claim. As to those matters, I respectfully dissent.
I. SHERMAN ACT § 1 CLAIM
(Buick franchise)
In my view the Sherman Act § 1 claims are controlled by Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984), which requires of plaintiffs “proof of a causal relationship between competitor complaints” and the decision not to deal. Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, 637…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc., and Mission Gas Oil Company, Inc. And Petroleum Products Co. v. Texaco, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.