When the U.S. Supreme Court decides a narrow issue of law, we can only speculate how the decision will be interpreted by lower courts. A Supreme Court decision interpreting one federal statute should only be persuasive precedent for the interpretation of a state statute, for example. But when the decision is well reasoned, the decision by analogy may be most persuasive. Such was the case in Bell v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution , 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90987 (N.D. IL 2012), creating a bright-line test for constructive termination of franchises.
Limiting Wrongful Franchise Termination Claims
The Legal Intelligencer
July 27, 2012
This content is now available at LexisNexis®.
The ALM® and LexisNexis® Content Alliance
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM’s legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM’s content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM’s other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM’s content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
If you are not currently a LexisNexis subscriber, contact 1-800-227-4908 to find out more or click here to have a customer representative contact you directly.