541 F. Supp. 321 - Meyer v. Amerada Hess Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Mathis v. Exxon Corp. (2002), Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. v. Ernst Enterprises, Inc. (1983)
10 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (Petroleum Marketing Pract) · 15 U.S.C. § 2802 · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2806 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bell v. Hood · Hagans v. Lavine · Henry Hughes v. Local No. 11 of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Afl-Cio · Munno v. Amoco 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) To the extent that any provision of this title 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 title.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), in any action under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall grant a preliminary injunction if— (A) the franchisee shows— (i) the franchise of which he is a party has been terminated or the franchise relationship of which he is a party has not been renewed, and (ii) there exist sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make such questions a fair ground for litigation; and (B) the court determines that, on balance, the hardships imposed upon the franchisor by the issuance of such preliminary injunctive relief will be less than the hardship which would be imposed upon such franchisee if such preliminary injunctive relief were not granted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Notice plainly states that Rosedale’s failure to agree to the changes or additions to the franchise relationship was a reason for ‘termination.’ ... In addition, the Notice expressly referred to the nonrenewal section of the Gas Agreement, Section 17.2 (with language similar to that of PMPA Section 2802(b)(3)(A)) providing that: ARCO may nonrenew this Agreement upon ... [b]uyer’s failure to agree to changes or additions to its franchise relationship with ARCO, which ARCO requests based upon ARCO’s determinations made in good faith and the normal course of business and without the purpose of preventing the renewal of the franchise relationship ....”
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.