Legal Opinion

Patel v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1989No. Civ. A. 88-3958PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Prakash H. Patel Shobha P. Patel, H/w v. Sun Company, Inc. Lancaster AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
  2. Prakash H. Patel and Shobha P. Patel, H/w v. Sun Company, Inc. And Lancaster AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  3. Patel v. Sun Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Patel v. Sun Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Koylum, Inc. v. Peksen Realty Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API