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.
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 1940 — 311 U.S. 609 · caselaw · US
General
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Louisiana
311 U.S. 609·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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. 286.
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Louisiana.
October 14, 1940.
Messrs. Roy T. Osborn and F. Carter Johnson, Jr. for appellant. Mr. E. - Leland Richardson for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented federal question. (1) Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443; (2) Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. S. 230, 236; Holmes v. Conway, 241 U. S. 624, 631-632; Hardware Dealers Insurance Co. v. Glidden Co., 284 U. S. 151, 158.