Legal Opinion
Wirkkula v. Union Oil Co.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided January 17, 1990No. CC87-2196; CA A50199PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGraber, P. J.
Defendant Union Oil Company of California petitions for reconsideration of our former decision. 98 Or App 282, 780 P2d 223 (1989). It argues, for the first time, that the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) creates exclusive federal court jurisdiction of all actions brought under it.1 We grant the petition to consider that argument but adhere to our original decision.
The few cases that have considered the question have reached conflicting conclusions. Some hold that there is concurrent state court jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ted’s Tire Service, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 470 F Supp 163,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Charles Dowd Box Co. v. CourtneySupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Ted's Tire Service Inc. v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1979
- Rustom v. Atlantic Richfield Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1985
- Johnson v. Mobil Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chaney v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- DuFresne's Auto Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Pennzoil Co. v. CarlsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Auto Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Grotemyer v. Lake Shore Petro Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1992