Sonoma Subaru, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIMS, J.
Real parties in interest Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru of Northern California (Subaru) determined that their dealership, plaintiff Sonoma Subaru, Inc. (Sonoma), was insolvent. Subaru sent Sonoma a statutorily-authorized 15-day notice of intent to terminate Sonoma’s dealership franchise. (Veh. Code, § 3060, subd. (a)(2)(C); statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise indicated.) 1 Under the controlling statute, Sonoma’s protest of the termination had to be filed with defendant New Motor Vehicle Board (Board) within 10 days after receiving the 15-day…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- People v. ValentineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Moyer v. PeabodySupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- California Housing Finance Agency v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Williams v. County of San JoaquinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Automotive Management Group, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Champion Motorcycles, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Nader Automotive Group, LLC v. New Motor Vehicle BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.