Veracka v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.2d 445 · 1981
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Brach v. Amoco Oil Co. (1982), Valentine v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1986)
31 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Exxon Corp. v. Busbee · Amoco Oil Co. v. Dickson · Ted's Tire Service Inc. v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. · Exxon Corp. v. Georgia Ass'n of Petroleum Retailers
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(C) The occurrence of an event which is relevant to the franchise relationship and as a result of which ... nonrenewal of the franchise relationship is reasonable, if such event occurs during the period the franchise is in effect____”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“loss of franchisor's right to grant possession of the leased marketing premises through expiration of an underlying lease”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) fraud or criminal misconduct by the franchisee relevant to the operation of the marketing premises; (2) declaration of bankruptcy or judicial determination of insolvency of the franchisee; (3) continuing severe physical or mental disability of the franchisee of at least 3 months duration which renders the franchisee unable to provide for the continued proper operation of the marketing premises; (5) condemnation or other taking, in whole or in part, of the marketing premises pursuant to the power of eminent domain; (6) loss of the franchisor's right to grant the right to use the trademark which is the subject of the franchise, unless such loss was due to trademark abuse, violation of Federal or State law, or other fault or negligence of the franchisor, which such abuse, violation, or other fault or negligence is related to action taken in bad faith by the franchisor; (7) destruction (other than by the franchisor) of all or a substantial part of the marketing premises; (8) failure by the franchisee to pay to the franchisor in a timely manner when due all sums to which the franchisor is legally entitled; (9) failure by the franchisee to operate the marketing premises for— (A) 7 consecutive days, or (B) such lesser period which under the facts and circumstances constitutes an unreasonable period of time; (10) willful adulteration, mislabeling or misbranding of motor fuels or other trademark violations by the franchisee; (11) knowing failure of the franchisee to comply with Fe”
3 later decisions 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.