E. S. Bills, Inc. v. Tzucanow
California Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceMosk, J.
I concur.
The majority opinion reaches the correct result on the issues raised and discussed. My concern, however, has been with the validity of Business and Professions Code section 20999.1. If the section is constitutionally infirm it would have no effect whatever on this unlawful detainer action.
Section 20999.1 provides, in substance, that no petroleum refiner or distributor franchisor “shall terminate, cancel, or fail to or refuse to renew any existing franchise without good cause,” and defines “good cause” to mean: (a) the franchisee has failed to comply with essential and reasonable…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Semmes Motors, Inc., Suing on Behalf of Itself and Together With Ford Dealers Alliance, Inc., Etc. v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Shell Oil Co. v. MarinelloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.