Legal Opinion
Rainey v. Union Oil Co.
Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals
Decided April 5, 1984No. TECA No. 9-77PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHRISTENSEN, Judge.
The controlling issue on this appeal is whether plaintiffs-appellants, doing business as Casino Car Wash (Casino), a branded independent marketer of gasoline, substantially complied with a regulation governing designation of a new base period gasoline supplier. Construing the regulation narrowly upon trial of this case before a jury, the district court held that certain information required to be furnished to the designee Union Oil Company (Union) was fatally lacking. Consequently the court withdrew the case from the jury at the close of the evidence and directed a verdict…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- McCallum v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scanlon v. BattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Maxey v. Freightliner Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- Condor Operating Co. v. SawhillTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1975
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pennzoil Exploration & Production Co. v. LujanTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1991
- Northern Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co.Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1985
- Union Oil Co. of California v. RaineyTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1985
- United States Department of Energy v. West Texas Marketing Corp.Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1985