Pennzoil Company v. Texaco, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
481 U.S. 1 (1987)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Despite an agreement between Pennzoil Company (Pennzoil) (defendant) and Getty Oil (Getty) for Pennzoil to purchase 40 percent of Getty’s shares, Getty sold the shares to Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) (plaintiff). Pennzoil, which was headquartered in Texas, sued Texaco, which was headquartered in New York, in a Texas state court, claiming that Texaco tortiously induced Getty to break its contract with Pennzoil. A jury found in Pennzoil’s favor, and the court entered a judgment of more than $11 billion. The day before entry of the judgment, Texaco sued Pennzoil in a federal district court in New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that the Texas judgment procedure violated its constitutional rights. Under Texas law, Texaco could suspend the judgment’s execution by filing a supersedeas bond for $13 billion, but filing the bond would not prevent Pennzoil from obtaining liens on Texaco’s property. Without enough funds to post bond, Texaco’s stock dropped significantly, its ability to obtain credit weakened, and its bond rating fell. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennzoil from enforcing the judgment, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Pennzoil sought review in the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence (Marshall, J.)
Concurrence (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
