Connection lost
Server error
Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An auto wholesaler sued Toyota for interfering with his business by telling dealers not to sell to him. The court held that to win, the wholesaler must prove Toyota’s actions were independently wrongful, not just that they interfered with his business, thereby protecting legitimate competition.
Legal Significance: This case fundamentally changed California law for the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic relations by shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to show the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, thereby protecting legitimate business competition from tort liability.
Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff John Della Penna was a successful automobile wholesaler who purchased Lexus vehicles from U.S. dealers and exported them for resale in Japan. Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., concerned that this gray market would undermine its new U.S. Lexus dealer network, implemented a “no export” policy in its dealership agreements. To enforce this policy, Toyota created and distributed an “offenders list” to its dealers, which included Della Penna’s name. Toyota warned its dealers that selling to individuals on the list could result in sanctions, including reduced vehicle allocations or franchise reevaluation. As a result of these actions, Della Penna’s sources for Lexus vehicles dried up, effectively destroying his business. Della Penna sued Toyota for intentional interference with his economic relations. At trial, over the plaintiff’s objection, the judge instructed the jury that Della Penna had to prove Toyota’s interfering conduct was “wrongful.” The jury found for Toyota. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that wrongfulness was not an element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must a plaintiff seeking to recover for intentional interference with prospective economic relations plead and prove as part of their case-in-chief that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself?
Yes. A plaintiff in an action for intentional interference with prospective economic Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Du
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Must a plaintiff seeking to recover for intentional interference with prospective economic relations plead and prove as part of their case-in-chief that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself?
Conclusion
This decision significantly heightened the plaintiff's burden of proof in interference with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Legal Rule
A plaintiff seeking to recover for an alleged interference with prospective contractual Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex
Legal Analysis
The California Supreme Court fundamentally restructured the tort of intentional interference with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- New Element: A plaintiff in a claim for interference with prospective