Legal Opinion
Muha v. United Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 27, 1980PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtArthur H. Healey, J.
The single question presented by this appeal is whether the defendant, United Oil Company (hereinafter United), was, at the time it terminated two month-to-month leases it had entered into with the plaintiffs for property operated as automobile service stations, a franchisor as defined in General Statutes § 42-133e (b) and (c) (Rev. to 1975). If the defendant was a franchisor, it was obliged to comply with various other provisions set out in General Statutes § 42-133f (Rev. to 1975) relating to the length of the lease term, the grounds for termination, notice of termination and compensation…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Massa v. NastriSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Colli v. Real Estate CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Liistro v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Sillman v. SillmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Peck v. JacqueminSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Mahoney v. LensinkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Frillici v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Grand Light & Supply Co., Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Honeywell, Inc., Micro Switch, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Hayes v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.