Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. v. Sullivan
Nebraska Supreme Court
559 N.W.2d 740, 251 Neb. 722 (1997)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Morton Sullivan (defendant) took his Chevrolet Suburban to dealerships owned by Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. (Dillon) (defendant) for repairs. Sullivan was dissatisfied with the repairs and upset that they were not covered by warranty. General Motors disputed Sullivan’s warranty claim because the problem was caused by installing aftermarket equipment. Sullivan sent Dillon a letter demanding that Dillon give Sullivan a new Suburban, or Sullivan threatened to put Dillon out of business, becoming Dillon’s “worst nightmare.” Sullivan then used mass mailing and automatic telephone dialing to issue announcements and news releases disparaging Dillon’s dealerships. Dillon filed an equity petition alleging defamation and violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), seeking damages and injunctive relief. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining Sullivan or his business from uttering any word that damaged Dillon’s business. Sullivan violated the order repeatedly. The court found Sullivan in contempt and fined him $25,000 and ordered attorney’s fees of $5,000 for the permanent injunction and $1,000 for the contempt hearing. The court found Sullivan had violated the UDTPA and issued a permanent injunction. Because Sullivan did not violate the injunction for a one-year period, the contempt fine was purged. Sullivan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gerrard, J.)
Dissent (Lanphier, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.