Svela v. Union Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.2d 1494 · 1987
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably May-Som Gulf Inc Da v. Chevron Usa Inc (1989), Han v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1995)
17 federal appellate · 6 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 Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · Alder v. United States · Gemelli v. Pennsylvania
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts that have interpreted the good faith provision have held that there is no basis in the statute to examine the economic consequences of a proposed new franchise agreement upon the franchisee so long as the franchisor does not have a discriminatory motive and does not use the change in provisions to avoid renewal. Thus, even though new rent provisions in a franchise agreement may make a franchise unprofitable to the dealer, unprofitability is not a measure of good faith. . . . . . . Moreover, the fact that a franchisor presents an agreement to its franchisees on a "take it or leave it" basis does not show a lack of good faith.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) The failure of the franchisor and the franchisee to agree to changes or additions to the provisions of the franchise, if— (i) such changes or additions are the result of determinations made by the franchisor in good faith and in the normal course of business; and (ii) such failure is not the result of the franchisor’s insistence upon such changes or additions for the purpose of converting the leased marketing premises to operation by employees or agents of the franchisor for the benefit of the franchisor or otherwise preventing the renewal of the franchise relationship.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[f]ranchise' as the combination of the franchisee's use of a franchisor's trademark, the lease of a service station, and the motor fuel supply contract.”
2 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.