Contracts · MBE-tested

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES

393 U.S. 7921 L. Ed. 2d 61·Supreme Court of the United States·1968

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES. No. 206. Decided October 21, 1968. 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. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. Being convinced on the record before us that Maleo 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.