Legal Opinion
Frankard v. Amoco Oil Co.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided November 9, 1983No. 83-210PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, P.J.
Richard and Janice Frankard, owners of a service station in Mequon, appeal from a directed verdict holding that there was no credible evidence to support their claim for economic duress against their franchisor, Amoco Oil Company. The trial court noted that a threat made to another is an insufficient ground for recovery if the threatening party has a legal right to do what it has threatened to do. Because the trial court could find no evidence disputing Amoco’s claim that it had a legal right to threaten cancellation of a lease, it directed verdict for Amoco. We do not agree with the trial…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- William C. Brach, Cross-Appellant v. Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Wurtz v. FleischmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- George A. Veracka v. Shell Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- Roy K. Hifai, Dba Roy's Sunnyvale Shell v. Shell Oil Co., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lievrouw v. RothCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990
- Davis v. Gulf Oil Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Magallanes v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Dimitrios Avramidis v. Arco Petroleum Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- Imark Industries, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987