Notes of Decisions
Joyce Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co., 701 F.3d 243 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Casey's General Stores removed the case to the federal district court asserting that Johnson's claim was completely preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., or, alternatively, that there was diversity jurisdiction under the Class…”
Dersch Energies, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 6× “” 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (2) (emphasis added). The term “franchise” means any contract between a franchisor, as defined by 15 U.”
Midwest Petroleum Co. v. Am. Petrofina, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 1099 (E.D. Mo. 1985).
· cites it 13× “" 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (17). "The terms `fail to renew' and `nonrenewal' mean, with respect to any franchise relationship, a failure to reinstate, continue, or extend the franchise relationship (A) at the conclusion of the term, or on the expiration date, stated in the relevant…”
Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 211 (D. Conn. 1981).
· cites it 9× “Lasko, the franchisee-proprietor of a gasoline service station in *214 Fairfield, Connecticut, has brought this action for an injunction and damages, claiming that defendant-franchisor, Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut (Consumers), is attempting to terminate his franchise in…”
William T. Pride Pride Enter., Inc. v. Exxon Corp. Texaco Refining & Mktg., 911 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Pride and Weber filed an action alleging that Exxon violated the withdrawal provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2801 , et seq. (Act). Pride and Weber also claimed that Texaco violated its duty of good faith due to Texaco’s continued operation of…”
Rawoof v. Texor Petroleum Co., 521 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq. The merits of the PMPA claim are not before us on this appeal, so we may omit any further discussion of the statute's requirements.”
Hanes v. Mid-Am. Petroleum, Inc., 577 F. Supp. 637 (W.D. Mo. 1983).
· cites it 11× “This case pends on cross motions for summary judgment on the separated issue of defendant’s liability under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. § 2801 , et seq. On March 24, 1983, plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case along with an application for…”
William C. Brach v. Amoco Oil Co., 677 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 3× “” 13 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (13)(B). A construction should not be adopted that would allow franchisors to circumvent the limitations embodied in other related sections simply because the franchisee failed to comply with, carry out, or agree to provisions which were not contained in…”
Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USA, 761 F. Supp. 1100 (D.N.J. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (the “PMPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.”
Interstate Petroleum Corp. v. Morgan, 249 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 8× “15 U.S.C. § 2801 .” Brief, p. 15. The argument goes that since § 2805(a) provides for a suit by a “franchisee .”
C.K. Smith & Co. v. Motiva Enter. LLC, 269 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2001).
· cites it 4× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801 (1)-(2), 2802. The parties renewed the salient agreements (and the franchise relationship) for additional three-year periods in 1992 and 1995.”
15 U.S.C. § 2801(1)(B)(12): 1 case
15 U.S.C. § 2801(3): 1 case
15 U.S.C. § 2801(6): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.