The formation of Equilon was approved by consent decreesubject to certain divestments and other modifications, by the Federal Trade Commission as well as by the state attorneys general of CaliforniaHawaiiOregonand Washington.
The Court ruled that the Equilon joint venture pricing decisions were not illegal price-fixing between competitors. Holding and Reasoning The holding and reasoning section includes: Texaco has cited no statute or case clearly indicating that Texas courts lack such power. I also agree with them that the District Court was correct in not abstaining under the principles enunciated in Younger v.
Pennzoil contacted Getty and demanded that they honor their agreement. In resolving that challenge, the Court need not decide any issue either Texaco case litigated in the Texas courts or inextricably intertwined with issues so litigated. We recognize that much has transpired in the Texas courts since then.
See Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. That request eventually was denied, because it failed to comply with Texas procedural rules. The Court's reasoning in that case informs our decision today: Page 85 Share Cite Suggested Citation: Facts[ edit ] Texaco and Shell Oilhistorically competitors in the national and international oil and gasoline markets, formed a joint venture in called "Equilon" to consolidate their operations in the western United Stateswhich ended competition between the two companies in the domestic refining and marketing of gasoline.
The arbitrator concluded that the nature of the deeds of concession agreement made it an internationalized contract. Now that Texaco has gone through this exercise for four years, they feel that what they are doing is good for all employees. Sims, supra, at U. However, Libya refused to submit to arbitration and did not appoint an arbitrator.
Brief for Appellee Although the Pullman issue was not pressed before us but see Brief for Appellantit was considered by the Court of Appeals and rejected.
Because Texaco apparently did not give the Texas courts an opportunity to adjudicate its constitutional claims, and because Texaco cannot demonstrate that the Texas courts were not then open to adjudicate its claims, there is no basis for concluding that the Texas law and procedures were so deficient that Younger abstention is inappropriate.
Our opinion does not hold that Younger abstention is always appropriate whenever a civil proceeding is pending in a state court. Three days after it filed its federal lawsuit, Texaco did ask the Texas trial court informally for a hearing concerning possible modification of the judgment under Texas law.
The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents. In light of these factors, the District Court concluded that Texaco's constitutional claims had "a very clear probability of success.
See Brief for Intervenor-Appellant in Nos. The Defendant, Texaco (the "Defendant"), after being contacted by Mr. Boisi began assessing a potential counter offer to buy Getty. Also on January 4,the Plaintiff"s lawyers were drafting a "transaction Texaco case, which described the potential purchase of Getty in more detail than the Memorandum and press release.
Texaco Petroleum (TexPet), which became a subsidiary of Chevron inwas a minority partner in an oil-production consortium in Ecuador along with the state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, from to Lawsuits against Texaco/Chevron over alleged pollution of rainforests and rivers in Ecuador and Peru, resulting in health problems for local communities.
Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) Permanent Court of Arbitration rules in favour of Chevron in Ecuador oil pollution case Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) Article. 30 August. A decree to nationalize all Texaco’s (P) rights, interest and property in Libya was promulgated by Libya (D).
This action of the Libyan Government led Texaco (P) to request for arbitration, but it was refused by Libya (D). PENNZOIL V. TEXACO, TWENTY YEARS AFTER: LESSONS FOR BUSINESS LAWYERS On November 19,a state court jury in Houston, Texas returned a verdict against Texaco, Inc., in the amount of billion dollars plus prejudgment the case and from the deal that gave rise to the case.
Texaco, 37 F.3d (2d Cir.
), affirming the lower court's holding rejecting Texaco's claim of fair use but setting forth different reasons. On April 24, Texaco filed its petition before the U.
S. Supreme Court, and the library and information associations planned to petition the court to allow them to file a friend of the court brief.Texaco case