Mt. Lebanon Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation, Mt. Lebanon Motors, Inc., Appellant in No. 17,654, Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation, Appellants in No. 17,655., 417 F.2d 622 (3rd Cir. 1969)

Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (November 07, 1969)

Docket number: 17655


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/lebanon-chrysler-36738718
Id. vLex: VLEX-36738718

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Lee Klinger Volkswagen, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Chrysler Credit Corporation, Chrysler Realty Corporation and Evanston Dodge, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 583 F.2d 910 (7th Cir. 1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Martin B. Glauser Dodge Co. v. Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Chrysler Financial Corporation, Chrysler Credit Corporation, Chrysler Realty Corporation, Appellants., 570 F.2d 72 (3rd Cir. 1977)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - Salco Corporation, Formerly Known and Doing Business as Denver Buick, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division, Defendant-Appellee., 517 F.2d 567 (10th Cir. 1975)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fiat Distributors, Inc., and Wakehouse Motors, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Chisholm Brothers Farm Equipment Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. International Harvester Company, Defendant-Appellee., 498 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - York Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., a Corporation, C. C. York and Jerry A. York, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross Appellants, v. Chrysler Credit Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant, Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Corporation, and Chrysler Corporation, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees, and Chrysler Credit Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Intervenor-Appellant-Cross Appellee., 447 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1971)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Greenville Publishing Company, Inc., Appellant, v. the Daily Reflector, Incorporated, Et Al., Appellees., 496 F.2d 391 (4th Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Coleman Motor Co., a Pennsylvania Corporation v. Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation, Appellants., 525 F.2d 1338 (3rd Cir. 1975)

Text:

Louis C. Glasso and Gerald N. Ziskind, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John L. Mussman, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Mt. Lebanon Motors, Inc.

Edmund K. Trent, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John McN. Cramer, Pittsburgh, Pa., Walter B. Maher, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for Chrysler Corp. and Chrysler Motors Corp.

Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a claim by a former Dodge automobile dealer against the manufacturer and its corporate sales subsidiary of said automobile. It was submitted to the jury on three issues, violations of sections one and two of the Sherman Act and of the Automobile Dealer Act. The jury rendered verdicts in favor of the defendants on the first and third causes. There was a plaintiff's verdict on the second issue but in addition thereto the jury specifically decided that plaintiff had not sustained any damages on that claim. The jury was polled immediately and the poll sustained the verdicts. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on the Sherman Act section one and the Automobile Dealer Act issues. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial as to damages was denied.

Plaintiff's appeal is based entirely upon alleged post trial statements of several jurors that there was prejudice within the jury during the trial against the plaintiff and that there was confusion and misunderstanding by the jury of answer to its request for additional instruction.

Our independent examination of this trial record establishes no reasonable ground for impeaching the jury verdicts. In that situation the protective cross appeal of the defendants as to the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on section two of the Sherman Act is for all practical purposes automatically eliminated.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access