General
MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, et al.
393 U.S. 321·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
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
MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, et al.
No. 756.
Decided January 13, 1969.
H. Vincent E. Mitchell and J.. Martin Regan for appellant.
George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Milton P. Rice, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.