Patel v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FULLAM, Chief Judge.
By Memorandum and Order dated October 14, 1988, I granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed this action. I concluded that no violation of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., had yet occurred, and that plaintiffs brought this litigation prematurely. In the Memorandum explaining that decision, I incorrectly suggested that an owner-franchisor could, in some circumstances, decline to renew a franchise (as distinguished from terminating an existing franchise) because the premises had been sold in good faith…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Prakash H. Patel Shobha P. Patel, H/w v. Sun Company, Inc. Lancaster AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Prakash H. Patel and Shobha P. Patel, H/w v. Sun Company, Inc. And Lancaster AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Patel v. Sun Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Patel v. Sun Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Koylum, Inc. v. Peksen Realty Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.