# Chuck's Feed & Seed Co. v. Ralston Purina Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 9, 1987 · 810 F.2d 1289

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8947310

## Case

- **Full name:** CHUCK'S FEED & SEED CO., INC., a corporation v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY, a corporation, South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association, Amicus Curiae
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 9, 1987
- **Citations:** 810 F.2d 1289; 55 U.S.L.W. 2496
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sprouse
- **Judges:** Murnaghan, Sprouse
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8947310

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that where remand is required, it may be unnecessary to review the other issues raised

## Opinion text

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I concur with the portion of the majority opinion holding that Lambert presented insufficient evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Ralston Purina Co. I would hold, however, that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could determine Ralston committed an unfair trade practice under South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) in terminating Lambert’s dealership. See Bostick Oil Co. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 702 F.2d 1207, 1220 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 894 , 104 S.Ct. 242 , 78 L.Ed.2d 232 (1983).
It is true that the district court directed a verdict on Lambert’s state common law action for wrongful termination. The trial court, however, visualized the factual predicate for maintaining the common law action as separate from that for upholding an action based on the UTPA. As a result, the court instructed the jury on the necessary factual elements for finding an unfair practice that would violate the statute. The jury found these facts to exist. I would uphold that jury determination.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8947310. Public record. Not legal advice.