Shell v. Shell Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding \[t]his Court does not have license to read a remedy into a statute that Congress did not enact. Section 2804 and 2805 provide adequate remedies for aggrieved dealers consistent with the balancing of interests the PMPA drafters intended to achieve.\
• holding “[t]his Court does not have license to read a remedy into a statute that Congress did not enact. Section 2804 and 2805 provide adequate remedies for aggrieved dealers consistent with the balancing of interests the PMPA drafters intended to achieve.”
• noting “that there is no allegation in this case that any Plaintiff accepted the renewal agreements under protest while simultaneously bringing suit, as was the case in Pro Sales. ”
• holding “[t]his Court does not have license to read a remedy into a statute that Congress did not enact. Section 2804 and 2805 provide adequate remedies for aggrieved dealers consistent with the balancing of interests the PMPA drafters intended to achieve.”
• noting “that there is no allegation in this case that any Plaintiff accepted the renewal agreements under protest while simulta- neously bringing suit, as was the case in Pro Sales.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).