15 U.S.C. § 2802
Franchise relationship
1994—Subsec. (b)(3)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 103–371, § 2, inserted “converting the leased marketing premises to operation by employees or agents of the franchisor for the benefit of the franchisor or otherwise” after “purpose of”.
Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 103–371, § 3, redesignated portion of introductory language of par. (4) as subpar. (A), redesignated former subpars. (A) and (B) as cls. (i) and (ii), respectively, of subpar. (A), and added subpars. (B) and (C).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 422
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Howard Lugar v. Texaco, Inc., 755 F.2d 53 (3rd Cir. 1985).
Howard Lugar v. Texaco, Inc., 755 F.2d 53 (3rd Cir. 1985). “The Act provides that a franchisor may terminate or fail to renew a franchise only for the reasons provided in the statute and by giving the requisite notice, § 102(a), 15 U.S.C. § 2802 (a) (1982). The permissible grounds are set forth in two sections of the Act, sections…”
Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USA, 761 F. Supp. 1100 (D.N.J. 1991). “In Count I (the “First Counterclaim”), Exxon alleges the failure of Glenside to make timely rental payments for the months September 1988 and April, October and November 1989 and threats by Glenside against Exxon’s personnel and *1105 property constitute grounds for termination…”
William C. Brach, Cross-Appellant v. Amoco Oil Co., a Maryland Corp., Cross-Appellee, 677 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir. 1982). “15 U.S.C. §§ 2802 (a), (b)(1). Section 2802(b)(2) sets forth grounds for termination and nonrenewal: (A) failure to comply with any provision of the franchise, which provision is both reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship; (B) failure to exert…”
Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Waldman, 515 F. Supp. 477 (M.D. Penn. 1981). “Such a failure would violate 15 U.S.C. § 2802 (b)(2)(A) and would therefore permit termination of the relationship under the PMPA.”
Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159 (D.N.J. 1988). “15 U.S.C. § 2802 (b)(2)(E)(i)(II). The Court agreed with Chevron’s contention that the appearance of Cumberland Farms as a willing buyer constituted a change in relevant cir *163 cumstances within the meaning of 15 U.”
Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USA, 761 F. Supp. 1118 (D.N.J. 1991). “(“Lee”), the president and sole shareholder of Glenside, as a ground for terminating the franchise relationship under the PMPA, 15 U.S.C. § 2802 . Oral argument on Exxon’s motion for injunctive relief and to supplement counterclaims was held on 25 February 1991.”
George A. Veracka v. Shell Oil Co., 655 F.2d 445 (1st Cir. 1981). “fail to renew any franchise rela-tionship____” 15 U.S.C. § 2802 (a)(2). Ve-racka also claimed a violation of a related state law, Mass.”
Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 559 U.S. 175 (2010). “15 U. S. C. §§2802 , 2804. Consistent with the typical franchise arrangement, a “franchise” is defined as “any contract” that authorizes a *179 franchisee to use the franchisor’s trademark, as well as any associated agreement providing for the supply of motor fuel or authorizing…”
Maylon B. Clinkscales T/a Clinkscales Oil Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 831 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1987). “” 15 U.S.C. § 2802 (c)(8). Second, the court concluded that Clinkscales’s acts of supplying non-Chevron gasoline to branded Chevron dealers constituted “willful adulteration, mislabeling or misbranding of motor fuels.”
The Wisser Co., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 730 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1984). “Consequently, by letter dated June 27, 1983, Mobil notified Wisser that it was terminating the contract and the franchise relationship effective immediately because of misbranding, citing paragraph 6 of the contract and various sections of the PMPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2802 (b)(2)(A),…”
Timothy O'Shea T/a Tim's Amoco v. Amoco Oil Co., 886 F.2d 584 (3rd Cir. 1989). “” 15 U.S.C. § 2802 (a)(1). The relevant exceptions are as follows: (2) For purposes of this subsection, the following are grounds for termination of a franchise .”
Slatky, John v. Amoco Oil Co., Serv. Station Dealers of Am., Inc., Amicus Curiae, 830 F.2d 476 (3rd Cir. 1987). “15 U.S.C. § 2802 . The PMPA also provides various notification requirements, some of which guarantee a franchisee an opportunity to correct any improper conduct with which he has been charged.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(a) — 1 case
Marcoux v. Shell Oil Prods. Co. LLC, 524 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(1) — 1 case
Donald W. Geib, D/B/A Rochester Colonial Amoco v. Amoco Oil Co., a Maryland Corp., 29 F.3d 1050 (6th Cir. 1994).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2) — 2 cases
Kehm Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 537 F.3d 290 (3rd Cir. 2008).
Kehm Oil Co v. Texaco Inc (3rd Cir. 2008).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2)(A) — 3 cases
George C. Doebereiner v. Sohio Oil Co., D/B/A B.P. Oil Co., Gulf Prods. Div., 880 F.2d 329 (11th Cir. 1989).
Donald W. Geib, D/B/A Rochester Colonial Amoco v. Amoco Oil Co., a Maryland Corp., 29 F.3d 1050 (6th Cir. 1994).
LLB Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Se. Petro Distribs., Inc., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2018).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2)(D) — 2 cases
Wojciechowski v. Amoco Oil Co., 483 F. Supp. 109 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Gurcharan Bros. Oil Co., Inc. v. SEI Fuel Servs., Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2022).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2)(E)(i) — 1 case
Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159 (D.N.J. 1988). “15 U.S.C. § 2802 (b)(2)(E)(i)(II). The Court agreed with Chevron’s contention that the appearance of Cumberland Farms as a willing buyer constituted a change in relevant cir *163 cumstances within the meaning of 15 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(3)(D)(i) — 1 case
Gruber v. Mobil Oil Corp., 570 F. Supp. 1088 (E.D. Mich. 1983).
— 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(3)(D)(iii) — 1 case
Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159 (D.N.J. 1988). “15 U.S.C. § 2802 (b)(2)(E)(i)(II). The Court agreed with Chevron’s contention that the appearance of Cumberland Farms as a willing buyer constituted a change in relevant cir *163 cumstances within the meaning of 15 U.”
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.