Meus Leblanc v. Continental Oil Company

Fifth Circuit

Meus Leblanc v. Continental Oil Company

350 F.2d 832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 1965

Docket21545_1

StatusPublished

This text of 350 F.2d 832 (Meus Leblanc v. Continental Oil Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meus Leblanc v. Continental Oil Company, 350 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, a service station operator, claims treble damages under the antitrust law, arising from the defendant Oil Company’s refusal to renew a one-year, service-station lease because of the plaintiff’s refusal to reduce his resale prices for gasoline. The plaintiff also claims a “tying” arrangement in violation of the Clayton Act with regard to the sale of tires, batteries and accessories, aided by the restriction of defendant’s credit cards to sales of Firestone and Goodrich tires and tubes.

The judgment of the district court, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Guidry v. Continental Oil Co., 5 Cir. 1965, 350 F.2d 342; Broussard v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 5 Cir. 1965, 350 F.2d 346.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, a service station operator, claims treble damages under the antitrust law, arising from the defendant Oil Company’s refusal to renew a one-year, service-station lease because of the plaintiff’s refusal to reduce his resale prices for gasoline. The plaintiff also claims a “tying” arrangement in violation of the Clayton Act with regard to the sale of tires, batteries and accessories, aided by the restriction of defendant’s credit cards to sales of Firestone and Goodrich tires and tubes.

The judgment of the district court, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Guidry v. Continental Oil Co., 5 Cir. 1965, 350 F.2d 342; Broussard v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 5 Cir. 1965, 350 F.2d 346.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 F.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meus-leblanc-v-continental-oil-company-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack