U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 55— PETROLEUM MARKETING PRACTICES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— FRANCHISE PROTECTION

15 U.S.C. § 2806

Relationship of statutory provisions to State and local laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Termination or nonrenewal of franchise(1) To the extent that any provision of this subchapter applies to the termination (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any franchise, or to the nonrenewal (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any franchise relationship, no State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of any law or regulation (including any remedy or penalty applicable to any violation thereof) with respect to termination (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any such franchise or to the nonrenewal (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any such franchise relationship unless such provision of such law or regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this subchapter.(2) No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of law (including a regulation) that requires a payment for the goodwill of a franchisee on the termination of a franchise or nonrenewal of a franchise relationship authorized by this subchapter.(b) Transfer or assignment of franchise(1) Nothing in this subchapter authorizes any transfer or assignment of any franchise or prohibits any transfer or assignment of any franchise as authorized by the provisions of such franchise or by any applicable provision of State law which permits such transfer or assignment without regard to any provision of the franchise.(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit any State from specifying the terms and conditions under which any franchise or franchise relationship may be transferred to the designated successor of a franchisee upon the death of the franchisee.(Pub. L. 95–297, title I, § 106, June 19, 1978, 92 Stat. 332; Pub. L. 103–371, § 5, Oct. 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 3485.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–371, § 5(1), redesignated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–371, § 5(2), redesignated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 132 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 6× “IV Petroleum Marketing Practice Act Preemption Amoco next contends that the holding of the court of appeals decision relating to the breach of good faith and fair dealing directly conflicts with the preemptive provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.”
Kehm Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 537 F.3d 290 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “essly preempts certain state laws: [N]o State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of any law or regulation (including any remedy or penalty applicable to any violation thereof) with respect to termination (or the…”
Forty-Niner Truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “( 15 U.S.C.A. § 2806 (a); Ervin v. Amoco Oil Co.”
Joyce Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co., 701 F.3d 243 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Compare 15 U.S.C. § 2806 (a)(1) with 15 U.S.C. § 2824 .”
Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 211 (D. Conn. 1981). · cites it 4× “The Court need not guess at Congressional intent, since Congress spoke directly and specifically to the question of preemption in § 106 of PMPA, 15 U.S.C. § 2806 , which states: (a) To the extent that any provision of this subchapter applies to the termination (or the furnishing…”
Cason v. Texaco, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 1518 (M.D. La. 1985). · cites it 4× “The relevant provision of PMPA which controls the relationship between state and local laws and PMPA is 15 U.S.C. § 2806 (a) which provides as follows: To the extent that any provision of this title applies to the termination (or the furnishing of notification with respect…”
William R. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1988). “Our disposition of Count III on grounds of insufficiency renders it unnecessary for us to reach appellee’s further contention that section 106(a) of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2806 (a), preempts chapter 93A in this instance.”
Donald W. Geib, D/B/A Rochester Colonial Amoco v. Amoco Oil Co., a Maryland Corp., 29 F.3d 1050 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “To avoid exposing petroleum marketers to inconsistent and unduly burdensome franchise regulation, Congress invoked federal supremacy, U.”
Davis v. Gulf Oil Corp., 485 A.2d 160 (D.C. 1984). · cites it 3× “Gulf’s response to this argument is that, to the extent the RSSA in any way purports to interfere with Gulf’s nonrenewal of the franchise and repossession of the premises, RSSA (enacted one and one-half years before the PMPA) is preempted by PMPA, 15 U.S.C. § 2806 (a) (1982).…”
Ackley v. Gulf Oil Corp., 726 F. Supp. 353 (D. Conn. 1989). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2806 (b), an assignment of a franchise, properly executed under applicable provisions of state law, does not constitute a termination or nonrenewal under the PMPA.”
Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USA, 761 F. Supp. 1100 (D.N.J. 1991). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 2806 11 This section preempts both statutory and common law involving wrongful franchise terminations.”
Clark v. BP Oil Co., 930 F. Supp. 1196 (E.D. Tenn. 1996). · cites it 6× “Whether the plaintiffs claims which arise under Tennessee law are preempted by the PMPA must be answered by reference to 15 U.S.C. § 2806 (a)(1), which provides, To the extent that any provision of this [title] applies to the termination (or the furnishing of notification with…”
Show all 132 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 2806(a) — 2 cases
Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 211 (D. Conn. 1981). “The Court need not guess at Congressional intent, since Congress spoke directly and specifically to the question of preemption in § 106 of PMPA, 15 U.S.C. § 2806 , which states: (a) To the extent that any provision of this subchapter applies to the termination (or the furnishing…”
Arbabian v. BP Am., 898 F. Supp. 703 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
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.