Richard M. WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, General Motors of Canada, Ltd., Ford Motor Company, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Canada, Inc., Honda Motor Company, Ltd., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Canada, Inc., DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft, DaimlerChrysler Canada, Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc., Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Canada, Inc., BMW of North America, Inc., BMW Canada, National Automobile Dealers Association and Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, Defendants-Respondents.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued January 29, 2007.
Decided March 20, 2007.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Donna Siegel Moffa, Philadelphia, PA, argued the cause for appellant (Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, attorneys; Ms. Moffa, Lisa J. Rodriguez and Nicole M. Acchione, Haddonfield, on the briefs).
William R. Sherman, a member of the District of Columbia bar, argued the cause for respondents Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, attorneys for Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., (Lavin, Coleman, O'Neil, Ricci, Finarelli & Gray, attorneys for General Motors Corporation and General Motors of Canada, Ltd., Krovatin & Associates, attorneys for American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Cooper, Rose & English, attorneys for Nissan North America, Inc., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Coggin, attorneys for DaimlerChrysler Canada, Inc. and Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc. and Connell Foley, attorneys for National Automobile Dealers Association; Bryan D. McElvaine, Joseph E. O'Neil, Philadelphia, PA, Gerald Krovatin, Newark, Peter M. Burke, Summit, Kevin M. McKeon, Cherry Hill and Brian G. Steller, Roseland, on the brief).
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 2:2-1(a)(2) following a dissent in the Appellate Division, from a judgment affirming the dismissal of their complaints in the Law Division.1 Plaintiffs' complaint alleged violations of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-1 to -19, and that those acts constituted "unconscionable practices" in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A....
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
