Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States et al.; Exxon Pipeline Co. v. United States et al.; BP Pipelines, Inc. v. United States et al.; and ARCO Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al., 1978 — 437 U.S. 902 · caselaw · US
General
Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States et al.; Exxon Pipeline Co. v. United States et al.; BP Pipelines, Inc. v. United States et al.; and ARCO Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al.
437 U.S. 902·Supreme Court of the United States·1978
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. A-1054 (Nos. 77-452, 77-457, 77-551, and 77-602).
Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States et al.; Exxon Pipeline Co. v. United States et al.; BP Pipelines, Inc. v. United States et al.; and ARCO Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al.,
[MAJORITY]
436 U. S. 631. Application for an order directing compliance with conditions of stay received and presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court. It is ordered that the judgment of this Court in the above-entitled cases be issued forthwith.