Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 886 F.2d 584 - O'Shea v. Amoco Oil Co.

O'Shea v. Amoco Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

886 F.2d 584 · 1989

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
4
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably DiTrolio v. Antiles (1995), Bennun v. Rutgers State University (1991)

30 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions

4501989199020002010decided

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. § 2802 · 15 U.S.C. § 2804 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2806 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738

Relies on Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Brach v. Amoco Oil Co. · Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corp. · 208 N.J. Super. 372 - Brown v. Brown · Melikian v. Corradetti

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.

  1. “[I]f parties or persons will, after final judgment is entered, be likely to have to engage in additional litigation to conclusively dispose of their respective bundles of rights and liabilities that derive from a single transaction or related series of transactions, the omitted components of the dispute or controversy must be regarded as constituting an element of one mandatory unit of litigation.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “only preempts state laws that limit the permissible substantive reasons that a petroleum franchise can terminate a franchisee”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The test for whether claims are ‘related’ such that they must be brought in a single action under New Jersey entire controversy doctrine ... [is] as follows: if parties or persons will, after final judgment is entered, be likely to have to engage in additional litigation to conclusively dispose of their respective bundles of rights and liabilities that derive from a single transaction or related series of transactions, the omitted components of the dispute or controversy must be regarded as constituting an element of one mandatory unit of litigation.””
    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.