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

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 28, 1995 · 63 F.3d 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488432

## Case

- **Full name:** COOPER DISTRIBUTING CO., INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Appellant in 94-5570, v. AMANA REFRIGERATION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Appellant in No. 94-5569
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 28, 1995
- **Citations:** 63 F.3d 262; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27719
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Sloviter, Alito, Schwarzer, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Roth, Lewis, Mekee, Sarokin
- **Cited by:** 70 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/9488432

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- finding that by the parties inserting “including, but not limited to” language in their contract, the parties, in effect, “unambiguously stated that the list was not exhaustive”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488432. Public record. Not legal advice.