Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lesch

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the customer of a Chevron dealer could not maintain an action against the franchisor on an apparent agency theory when the customer knew that the station was independently owned and operated
• holding that it was unreasonable for the plaintiffs to assume that an independent gas station had the apparent authority of its named Oil Company where the independence of such stations was \common knowledge\
• holding that it was unreasonable for the plaintiffs to assume that an independent gas station had the apparent authority of its named Oil Company where the independence of such stations was “common knowledge”
• observing that one criterion of an employment relationship is “the power to control the [employee’s] conduct” (quoting Keitz v. Nat’l Paving Co., 214 Md. 479, 491 (1957))
• observing that one criterion of an employment relationship is “the power to control the [employee’s] conduct” (quoting Keitz v. Nat’l Paving Co., 214 Md. 479, 491 (1957))
• master/servant relationship only exists when employer has right to control and direct servant in performance of work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).