Mobil Oil Corporation v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services of Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where a law was recently amended to cover con- duct at issue \[i]t would be unreasonable to assume\ that the government made that change \without intending that it be enforced\
• holding that where a law was recently amended to cover con- duct at issue \[i]t would be unreasonable to assume\ that the government made that change \without intending that it be enforced\
• noting that a case or controversy exists in a constitutional challenge to a private enforcement statute because the state official has sufficient adverse interests by having the power to intervene to defend the statute
• noting that there was “no reason to assume that the Virginia legislature enacted [the challenged] statute without intending it to be enforced”
• finding standing in pre- enforcement challenge to the Virginia Petroleum Products Franchise Act which created a “stiff civil remedy”: $2,500 in liquidated damages, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees
• in pre-enforcement challenge to the Virginia Petroleum Products Franchise Act, noting its “stiff civil remedy” of $2,500 in liquidated damages, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).