Franchise Law

Limiting Wrongful Franchise Termination Claims

, The Legal Intelligencer


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.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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 Advance®. 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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202564614226

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.