Legal Opinion
Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided January 17, 1986No. C7-84-2026PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOZNIAK, Judge.
Sinclair Marketing, Inc. appeals from a judgment ordering it to pay damages to Donald Hughes and Clair Anderson for improper nonrenewal of a franchise under the Minnesota Franchise Act. Hughes and Anderson also appeal, urging that the two misrepresentation theories set aside by the trial court be reinstated as additional bases for the jury’s award. Hughes and Anderson also request that the case be remanded to award attorney’s fees for the appeal and to apply a multiplier to the fees award. We affirm the trial court’s award of damages, and remand to the trial court to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- George Arnott v. The American Oil Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1979
- Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. v. Crown Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago SouthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Hampton v. State of MichiganMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Johnson v. City of ShorewoodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.