Lugar v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
755 F.2d 53 · 1985
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Brenner v. Local United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (1991), Jackson v. University of Pittsburgh (1987)
17 federal appellate · 4 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)
Relies on In re Disbarment of Kleindienst · Connecticut v. Mohegan Tribe · Brach v. Amoco Oil Co. · Battle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Sun Refining and Marketing Company, Formerly Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania v. Pat J. Rago
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] judicial determination may be made that an event, other than one enumerated in this list, or an event similar but not identical to one enumerated in the list, constitutes an event which is relevant to the franchise relationship as a result of which termination or nonrenewal is reasonable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Expiration of the underlying lease could occur under a variety of circumstances including, for example, a decision by the franchisor not to exercise an option to renew the underlying lease. However, it is not intended that termination or non-renewal should be permitted based upon the expiration of a lease which does not evidence the existence of an arms length relationship between the parties and as a result of the expiration of which no substantive change in control of the premises results.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) For purposes of this subsection, the following are grounds for termination of a franchise or non-renewal 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 relationship is reasonable, if such event occurs during the period the franchise is in effect....”
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.