How cited: Jeetendra L. Shukla, Individually v. Bp Exploration & Oil, Inc., A.K.A. Bp Oil Company, P… · Go Syfert

Jeetendra L. Shukla, Individually v. Bp Exploration & Oil, Inc., A.K.A. Bp Oil Company, Petro Distributing, Inc. (1997)

green · 72 citation events across 19 courts. Showing the 25 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199720112026
Rule Authority · SCOTUS
See, e. g., 524 F. 3d, at 44-45 (case below); Clark v. BP Oil Co., 137 F. 3d 386, 390-391 (CA6 1998); Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F. 3d 849, 852-853 (CA11 1997).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 852-54 (11th Cir.1997); Chestnut Hill Gulf, Inc. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 940 F.2d 744, 750-52 (1st Cir.1991); Ackley v. Gulf Oil Corp., 726 F.Supp. 353, 360 (D.Conn.), aff'd mem., 889 F.2d 1280 (2d Cir.1989); May-Som Gulf, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 869 F.2d 917, 922-25 (6th Cir.1989).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 852-54 (11th Cir. 1997); Chestnut Hill Gulf, Inc. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 940 F.2d 744, 750-52 (1st Cir. 1991); Ackley v. Gulf Oil Corp., 726 F. Supp. 353, 360 (D.
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Shukla, 115 F.3d at 852
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 851 (11th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Id. at 857.
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Dade County v. Alvarez, 124 F.3d 1380, 1383 (11th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1122 , 118 S.Ct. 1804 , 140 L.Ed.2d 943 (1998); Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 851 (11th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Dade County v. Alvarez, 124 F.3d 1380, 1383 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1804 (1998); Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 851 (11th Cir. 1997).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 851 (11th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · M.D. Fla. · 2 citations in this opinion
In support of their argument, First Coast relies heavily on Shukla v. BP Expl. & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 856 (11th Cir. 1997) for the proposition that § 2806(a)(1) is a strong preemption provision that preempts all claims that are “intimately bound up” with the termination or nonrenewal of a franchise.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
BP cites out-of-circuit case law for the proposition that the PMPA preempts causes of action for breach of contract that are “intimately intertwined with the termination or nonrenewal of a franchise.” Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 857 (11th Cir. 1997).
Rule Authority · D. Mass.
Co. LLC, 524 F.3d 33 , 44-45 (1st Cir. 2008); Clark v. BP Oil Co., 137 F.3d 386, 390-91 (6th Cir. 1998); Shukla v. BP Expl. & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 852-53 (11th Cir. 1997)).
Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.
Incorporating these definitions into section 2802(b)(2)(A), we conclude that Congress intended to permit termination or nonrenewal only when the franchisee's failure to comply involves a franchise provision that is both reasonable-that is, fair, proper, just or moderate-and of real importance or great consequence to the franchise relationship. 7 A franchise relationship consists of three elements: "a contract to use the refiner's trademark, a contract for the supply of motor…
citation omitted
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
See, e.g., Marcoux, 524 F.3d at 45 (citing Chestnut Hill Gulf v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 940 F.2d 744 (1st Cir.1991)); Portland 76 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 153 F.3d 938, 948 (9th Cir.1998); Beachler v. Amoco Oil Co., 112 F.3d 902, 906 (7th Cir.1997); Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 853 (11th Cir.1997); Barnes, 795 F.2d at 360-64 .
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
In Shukla , the Court held that BP could not have breached an implied covenant of good faith because the agreement specifically provided that all BP products purchased by the plaintiff “shall be BP’s price in effect at the time and place of delivery for franchise dealers,” and that “prices for all products shall be subject to change without notice to Dealer.” Id. at 853 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
Rule Authority · E.D. La.
Preemption of Plaintiff’s LUPTA Claim: “The PMPA provides exclusive remedies for disputes relating to the non-renewal of franchises and preempts state law claims based on nonrenewal, no matter how such claims are characterized.” Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 856 (11th Cir.1997); Esquivel v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 700 F.Supp. 890, 897 (W.D.Tex.1988).
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 852 (11th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · S.D. Tex.
See, e.g., Clark v. BP Oil Co., 137 F.3d 386, 390 (6th Cir.1998) (quoting May-Som Gulf, Inc., 869 F.2d 917, 923 (6th Cir.1989)); Shukla v. BP Exploration, 115 F.3d 849, 853-54 (11th Cir.1997) (citing May-Som Gulf, Inc., 869 F.2d at 922). 40 Outside the franchisor-assignment context, the Act only contemplates that there will be a continuation or extension of the franchise relationship in the most general sense.
Rule Authority · D. Maryland
See e.g., May-Som Gulf, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 869 F.2d 917, 922 (6th Cir.1989) (“[T]o sustain a claim, under the PMPA, that a franchisor assigned and thereby constructively terminated a franchise agreement, the franchisee must prove either: (1) that by making the assignment, the franchisor breached one of the three statutory components of the franchise agreement (the contract to use the refiner’s trademark, the contract for the supply of motor fuel, or the lease of t…
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
It exempts franchisors who fail to renew trial franchises from complying with the requirements of § 2802 because, unlike full franchises, trial franchises may be nonrenewed for any reason. 10 15 U.S.C. *113 § 2808(a)(1), (c)(1); see also Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 852 (11th Cir.1997); Razavi v. Amoco Oil Co., 41 F.3d 1549, 1550 (D.C.Cir.1994).
Cited (see also) · 5th Cir. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, 115 F.3d 849, 854-57 (11th *488 Cir.1997); Chestnut Hill Gulf, Inc. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 940 F.2d 744, 750-52 (1st Cir.1991); May-Som Gulf, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 869 F.2d 917, 918-19 (6th Cir.1989); Barnes v. Gulf Oil Corp., 795 F.2d 358, 362-64 (4th Cir.1986).
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Shukla v. BP, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 853 (11th Cir.1997) (holding that exact same price term in a BP franchise agreement was an open price term permitting BP’s assignee to charge independent dealer a higher price than BP had charged).
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
The PMPA, promulgated for the purpose of protecting petroleum franchisees from franchisors’ arbitrary or discriminatory decisions to terminate or non-renew franchise leases, provides standards and procedures which a franchisor must follow when terminating or non-renewing a franchise. 15 U.S.C. § 2804 ; see Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 852 (11th Cir.1997); Beachler v. Amoco Oil Co., 112 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir.1997).
Cited (see also) · N.D. Fla. · signal: see also
See Fla. Stat. §§ 672.204 (3), 672.305 (codifying U.C.C. §§ 2-204(3), 2-305); see also Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 854 (11th Cir.1997); Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp.
Cited (see also) · E.D.N.Y · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849 (11th Cir.1997) (holding that fraud claim concerning non-renewal of franchise agreement was preempted by PMPA); Yonaty v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2005 WL 1460411 (N.D.N.Y.