643 F. Supp. 1050 - Marks v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2005
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2804 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2806
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Arnett v. Kennedy · In re Disbarment of Kleindienst
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) For purposes of this subsection, the following are grounds for termination of a franchise or nonrenewal of a franchise relationship: (C) The occurrence of an event which is relevant to the franchise relationship and as a result of which termination of the franchise or non-renewal of the franchise relationship is reasonable, if such event occurs during the period the franchise is in effect and the franchisor first acquired actual or constructive knowledge of such occurrence— (i) not more than 120 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonrenewal is given, if notification is given pursuant to section 2804(a) of this title; or (ii) not more than 60 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonrenewal is given, if less than 90 days notification is given pursuant to section 2804(b)(1) of this title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... Marks has failed to demonstrate that Shell's nonrenewal of the base lease was made with evil intent. Although Marks alleges that Shell's nonrenewal was in retaliation for, among other things, her failure to purchase Shell products, Marks has produced no evidence thereof besides mere allegations. Similarly, the bare claim of sex discrimination suffers from the identical malaise....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To apply the 120-day requirement to the non-renewal of a base lease would promote ... a search for a single “non-renewing occurrence” during the franchise period. Yet, often there will be no such single occurrence and the effort to find one will simply promote unresolvable controversy.”
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.