Brach v. Amoco Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.2d 1213 · 1982
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 16 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Moody v. Amoco Oil Co. (1984), Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (1983)
75 federal appellate · 16 district · 10 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 Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. · Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Street · Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'must be given a liberal construction consistent with its overriding purpose to protect franchisees.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his relationship is, therefore, often complex and characterized by at times competing interests.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“means a provision that is grounded in common sense and experience and is not unconscionable. See also id. at 1223. The reasonableness standard, Mobil urges, looks to the beliefs and expectations of the franchisor at the time the provision was proposed, not when termination occurred. Moreover, any franchise provision proposed by the franchisor in good faith and in the normal course of business is of”
8 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.