Legal Opinion
Millett v. Union Oil Co. of California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 12, 1994No. 92-36883PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge HALL.
CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:
Appellants were franchisees of entities owned by Appellee Union Oil Company of California (“Unocal”). Appellants argue that they are entitled to the goodwill value of their auto repair franchises because Unocal failed to give them the required notice of nonrenewal mandated by the Washington *12Franchise Investment Protection Act (“FIPA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Unocal, concluding that the FIPA’s one-year notice requirement was preempted by the ninety-day requirement in the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Fu-Kong Tzung Jean Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Does 1 Through 100, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- William Michael Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, United Transportation UnionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- James C. Svela v. Union Oil Company of California, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Consumers Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,566 in Re Fred Herbert, Debtor. Atlantic Richfield Company v. Fred HerbertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Millett v. Union Oil Company Of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Antonetti v. FilsonDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2021
- Arch Insurance Company v. Safeco Insurance Company of AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2019
- Armstrong v. Atrium Medical CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2022
- Cherry v. Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2021
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.