Governor of Maryland v. Exxon Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
| Citation | 372 A.2d 237,279 Md. 410 |
| Parties | GOVERNOR OF the State of MARYLAND et al. v. EXXON CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Jon F. Oster, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John A. Woodstock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore , for appellants.
Robert G. Levy, George W. Liebmann and Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman, Baltimore, on the brief of amici curiae Day Enterprises, Inc., etc., Booth's, Inc., Dolan Enterprises, Inc. and PLB Industries, Inc.
Lewis A. Noonberg, Baltimore (William L. Marbury, David F. Tufaro, Piper & Marbury and Richard P. Delaney, Baltimore, on the brief), for Exxon Corp.
William Simon, Robert G. Abrams, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., George W. Shadoan, Shadoan & Mack, Rockville, and A. M. Minotti, Houston, Tex., on the brief, for Shell Oil Co.
Lawrence S. Greenwald, Baltimore (Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, Baltimore, on the brief), for Gulf Oil Corp.
Wilbur D. Preston, Jr., Baltimore (Stanley B. Rohd and Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore, on the brief), for Continental Oil Co. and Kayo Oil Co.
Richard A. Reid, Townson (Royston, Mueller & McLean, Towson, on the brief), for Petroleum Marketing Corp. and Com. Oil Refining Co., Inc.
Fred W. Drogula, Washington, D.C. (David Ginsburg, James E. Wesner, Ginsburg, Feldman & Bress, Washington, D.C., David F. Albright, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, and Arloe W. Mayne, Gen. Counsel, Ashland, Ky., on the brief), for Ashland Oil, Inc.
J. Edward Davis, Daniel T. Doherty, Jr., and Weinberg & Green, Towson, submitted brief for Phillips Petroleum Co.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE and ELDRIDGE, JJ., and JAMES C. MORTON, Jr. and RIDGELY P. MELVIN, Jr., Special Judges.
ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND STAY OF MANDATE
Appellees have all filed motions for reconsideration. In all respects but one, the points raised have been adequately answered by this Court's opinion, and to this extent the motions are denied.
The one matter raised which is not dealt with in the Court's opinion involves a question of statutory interpretation. In their motion for reconsideration Commonwealth Oil Refining Company, Inc., and Petroleum Marketing Corporation (PMC) have requested that the mandate of this Court be modified to allow the court below on remand to consider their argument that the Maryland Act is not applicable to PMC. In its declaration, PMC alleged that the term 'retail service station' as used in Paragraphs B and C of the Act refers only to retail service stations offering a 'full line of automotive services to the motoring public' and that, therefore, those provisions are not applicable to PMC which operates 'gas only' service stations. The trial court did not rule on this issue, and since this question was not raised on appeal, this Court did not consider it. However, as this contention involves only a legal issue of statutory interpretation, we shall now consider it instead of remanding for further trial court proceedings. See Maryland Rule 885.
Definitions applicable to the entire Motor Fuel Inspection Law, Maryland Code , Art. 56, §§ 157A-157M, of which the challenged statute is a part, are found in Art. 56, § 157A. Section 157A(6) defines 'retail service station dealer' as 'any person, firm or corporation maintaining a place of business where motor vehicle fuel is sold and delivered into the tanks of motor vehicles.' In view of this definition of 'retail service station dealer,' it is clear that 'retail service station' refers to any retail place of business where motor vehicle fuel is sold and delivered into the tanks of motor vehicles. The terms is not limited to those places which, in addition to selling motor vehicle fuel, also offer automotive services. Moreover, the purpose of Paragraphs B and C is to preserve competition in the retail gasoline market by eliminating what the Legislature determined to be the destructive competition of service stations operated directly by producers or refiners. To so limit the definition of 'retail service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Transp., Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Armacost
...It is not enough for the property owners to show that the ... action results in substantial loss or hardship.' " Governor v. Exxon Corp., 279 Md. 410, 437, 372 A.2d 237 (1977), aff'd 437 U.S. 117, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 (1978), quoting Baltimore City v. Borinsky, 239 Md. 611, 622, 212......
-
Bowers v. State
...423 U.S. 48, 49, 96 S.Ct. 243, 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975); United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. at 617, 74 S.Ct. 808; Governor v. Exxon Corp., 279 Md. 410, 454, 370 A.2d 1102, 372 A.2d 237 (1977), Aff'd, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 A statute may also be stricken for vagueness if it......
-
Exxon Corporation v. Governor of Maryland Shell Oil Company v. Governor of Maryland Continental Oil Company v. Governor of Maryland Gulf Oil Corporation v. Governor of Maryland Ashland Oil, Inc v. Governor of Maryland
...statute, the States' power to engage in economic regulation would be effectively destroyed. Pp. 133-134. 279 Md. 410, 370 A.2d 1102 and 372 A.2d 237, William Simon, Washington, D. C., for appellants. Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Thomas M. Wilson, III, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore,......
-
Hornbeck v. Somerset County Bd. of Educ.
...289 Md. 683, 704-05, 426 A.2d 929 (1981); Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 27, 410 A.2d 1052 (1980); Governor v. Exxon Corp., 279 Md. 410, 423, 372 A.2d 237 (1977), aff'd, 437 U.S. 117, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 (1978). We have, however, long recognized that decisions of the Sup......
-
Maryland. Practice Text
...of 148. Exxon Corp ., 370 A.2d at 1124-25 (emphasis in original). 149. See part 13.a. of this chapter for a more in-depth discussion. 150. 372 A.2d 237 (1977). 151. 79 Op. Md. Att’y Gen. 3. 152. 437 U.S. 117 (1978). 153. Id . at 129-34. 154. See Exxon Corp. , 370 A.2d at 1120-21. 155. Md. C......
-
The Robinson–Patman Act and the Supreme Court, 1978-85
...federal right to discriminate to meetcompetition. The Court concluded no such federal right had been23 GovernorofMaryland v. Exxon Corp., 279 Md. 410, 370 A.2d1102, 372 A.2d 237 (1977).24 Justice Stevens authored the Court's opinion. Justice Powell didnot participate. Justice Blackmun concu......