216 F. Supp. 2d 634 - Shell v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (Petroleum Marketing Pract) · 15 U.S.C. § 2802 · 15 U.S.C. § 2804 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Rl v. Ct · Merle Manguno v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company · Scarborough v. Principi · Barrow v. New Orleans Steamship Ass'n
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his Court does not have license to read a remedy into a statute that Congress did not enact. Section 2804 and 2805 provide adequate remedies for aggrieved dealers consistent with the balancing of interests the PMPA drafters intended to achieve.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that there is no allegation in this case that any Plaintiff accepted the renewal agreements under protest while simultaneously bringing suit, as was the case in Pro Sales.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]ecause a franchisor cannot terminate without providing the requisite notice, threats of termination unaccompanied by explicit notice pursuant to § 2804 have no teeth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.