CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 79 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 79 (1968)

393 U.S. 79

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
No. 206.
Decided October 21, 1968.

Affirmed.

David T. Searls, Harry M. Reasoner, and Lloyd F. Thanhouser for appellant.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Zimmerman, and Lawrence W. Somerville for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

Being convinced on the record before us that Malco Refineries, Inc., was not a "failing company," United States v. Third National Bank, 390 U.S. 171, 183 (1968); International Shoe Co. v. FTC, 280 U.S. 291 (1930), and that the record otherwise supports the decree, United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U.S. 546 (1966), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that this case involves issues of fact and law which should not be decided without plenary consideration, would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 393 U.S. 79, 80




U.S. Supreme Court

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 79 (1968)

393 U.S. 79

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
No. 206.
Decided October 21, 1968.

Affirmed.

David T. Searls, Harry M. Reasoner, and Lloyd F. Thanhouser for appellant.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Zimmerman, and Lawrence W. Somerville for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

Being convinced on the record before us that Malco Refineries, Inc., was not a "failing company," United States v. Third National Bank, 390 U.S. 171, 183 (1968); International Shoe Co. v. FTC, 280 U.S. 291 (1930), and that the record otherwise supports the decree, United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U.S. 546 (1966), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that this case involves issues of fact and law which should not be decided without plenary consideration, would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 393 U.S. 79, 80

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.