Zeno Buick-GMC, Inc. v. GMC Truck and Coach, a Div. of General Motors Corp.

9 F.3d 115, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 35055, 1993 WL 470707
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1993
Docket92-2213
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 F.3d 115 (Zeno Buick-GMC, Inc. v. GMC Truck and Coach, a Div. of General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zeno Buick-GMC, Inc. v. GMC Truck and Coach, a Div. of General Motors Corp., 9 F.3d 115, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 35055, 1993 WL 470707 (8th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

9 F.3d 115

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.
ZENO BUICK-GMC, INC.; Larry Zeno; Marcia Zeno, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
GMC TRUCK AND COACH, a Division of General Motors
Corporation; General Motors Acceptance Corporation;
GMC-Buick, Inc., A Division of General Motors Corporation;
Eddie Rayborn, individually and in his representative
capacity as an agent for GMC Truck and Coach, Appellees.

No. 92-2213.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 14, 1993.
Filed: November 17, 1993.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Zeno Buick-GMC, Inc., its sole stockholder Larry Zeno, and his wife Marcia Zeno sued GMC Truck and Coach, GMC-Buick, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, and Eddie Rayborn, Jr., a GMC Truck and Coach district service manager. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act (ADDCA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1221 et seq., and also alleged several pendent state law claims. The District Court1 granted summary judgment in favor of the General Motors defendants on the ADDCA claims and most of the pendent state law claims, and granted plaintiffs' motion for voluntary non-suit on the remaining claims. Plaintiffs appeal.

For reversal, plaintiffs challenge the propriety of the District Court's summary judgment rulings. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that no error of law appears, and that an opinion would lack precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm without opinion on the basis of the District Court's well-reasoned order. The judgment is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Taylor Equipment, Inc. v. John Deere Company
98 F.3d 1028 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
Taylor Equipment, Inc. v. John Deere Co.
98 F.3d 1028 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F.3d 115, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 35055, 1993 WL 470707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeno-buick-gmc-inc-v-gmc-truck-and-coach-a-div-of-general-motors-corp-ca8-1993.