Opinion

Cooper Distributing Co., Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, in 94-5570 v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

  • 63 F.3d 262
  • 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27719
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed
Sep 28, 1995
Status
Published
On the bench
Sloviter, Alito, Schwarzer, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Roth, Lewis, Mekee, Sarokin
Cited by
70 cases

holding that because the agreement between a manufacturer and its wholesale distributor unambiguously provided for a non-exclusive relationship, the manufacturer did not breach the agreement by selling products directly to dealers in the distributor’s sales area

How later courts described this case

  • holding that because the agreement between a manufacturer and its wholesale distributor unambiguously provided for a non-exclusive relationship, the manufacturer did not breach the agreement by selling products directly to dealers in the distributor’s sales area
  • holding in tort case that plaintiff was not entitled to nominal damages because plaintiff did not request such an instruction, either by choice or inadvertence, and thus, the plaintiff should bear the consequences
  • finding that a showroom/marketing center constituted a qualifying place of business because the franchisee “regularly used th[e] facility for activities that were an integral part of the sales process”
  • noting that a federal court is “not free to impose our own view of what state law should be” (citation omitted)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Sept. 28, 1995

The petition for rehearing filed by Cooper Distributing Co., Inc., Cross-Appellant in the above entitled case, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.