Legal Opinion
Mailand v. Burckle
California Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1978No. L.A. 30706PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.
Plaintiffs, Wilfred and Margaret Mailand, as franchisees, entered into an agreement with Arthur and Lois Burckle, Geraldine and Paul Hassan and Green Pastures Daily (hereinafter defendants) to operate a Palmdale drive-in dairy owned by defendants. Gasoline as well as dairy products were sold on the premises. The agreement required plaintiffs to purchase gasoline from Powerine Oil Company (Powerine), and it provided that defendants could set the price of gasoline sold by plaintiffs, in exchange for a guaranteed profit of 7 percent to plaintiffs on gasoline sales. Defendants…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Community HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Younger v. JensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2007
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.