Pearman v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (Petroleum Marketing Pract) · 15 U.S.C. § 2802 · 15 U.S.C. § 2803 · 15 U.S.C. § 2804 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Blue Ridge Gas Company, Intervenor. Petition for Review of Order of the Federal Power Commission, No. 14583. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Appeal From United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 460 F. Supp. 114 - Saad v. Shell Oil Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) such changes or additions are the result of determinations made by the franchisor in good faith and in the normal course of business; and (ii) such failure is not the result of the franchisor’s insistence upon such changes or additions for the purpose of preventing • the renewal of the franchise relationship.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Plaintiff further challenges Texaco’s failure to give weight to the gasoline allocation of each station in determining a fair rental rate. If Texaco had given consideration to this factor in determining the rent for some stations but not plaintiff’s it might be some evidence that the rental changes were not requested in good faith in the normal course of business. However, uncontroverted evidence was presented that this had never been a factor considered by the company. . . . [T]he Court is not prepared to find that allocation should have been considered by the company. Additionally, the Court does not believe that the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act was intended to authorize this Court to substitute its judgment as to what factors should or should not be considered in determining rental rates. Where rental changes are made in good faith, in the normal course of business and not for the purpose of preventing the renewal of the franchise relationship, the mere fact that the parties or the Court would have made a different business judgment or base that judgment on different factors is immaterial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no indication that plaintiff was treated any differently than any other franchisee when Texaco sought to make changes in plaintiffs lease.... The Lease offered plaintiff was the same form lease submitted to every other dealer.”
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.