The Wisser Company, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
730 F.2d 54 · 1984
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1985), Power Test Petroleum Distributors, Inc. v. Calcu Gas, Inc. (1985)
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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. § 2804 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Escobar v. Mobil Oil Corp. · 515 F. Supp. 477 - Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Waldman · Bilbow v. Moore McCormack Lines, Inc · Escobar v. Mobil Oil Corp.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear from the structure of the statute that Congress meant to give franchisees the right to cure for some kinds of conduct or conditions that if continued would warrant termination or nonrenewal, but did not intend to require a second chance for other kinds of conduct or conditions. See S.Rep. No. 731, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 33-38 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 873, 891-97. While the legislative history does contemplate “[flexibility ... so that a franchisor may work with a franchisee in an effort to correct the situation and avoid termination ... or nonrenewal,” id. at 33-34, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 892, it also recognizes that “[s]ome contractual violations, although not readily reducible to a dollar value, may be so serious as to undermine the entire relationship,” id. at 18, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 876. The misbranding alleged in this case falls into the latter category.... [W]e hold that terminations pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 2802 (b)(2)(A) and 2802(b)(2)(C) do not require notice and opportunity to cure before notice of termination may be given.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) A failure by the franchisee to comply with any provision of the franchise, which provision is both reasonable and of material significance to the 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 nonrenewal of the franchise relationship is reasonable....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(10) willful adulteration, mislabeling or misbranding of motor fuels or other trademark violations by the franchisee;”
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.