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.
OHIO OIL COMPANY v. INDIANA, 1900 — 177 U.S. 212 · caselaw · US
General
OHIO OIL COMPANY v. INDIANA
177 U.S. 21244 L. Ed. 740·Supreme Court of the United States·1900
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
OHIO OIL COMPANY v. INDIANA
(NO. 2).
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 83.
Argued December 18, 19, 1899.
Decided April 9, 1900.
The judgment below in this case is affirmed for the reasons given in Ohio Oil Company v. Indiana, ante, page 190.
This case was argued with No. 84, ante, 190, and by the same counsel.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant below was sued for the sum of certain penalties imposed by law for allowing gas to escape into the atmospheric air from an oil and gas well. The statute by which the penalties wrere imposed is the one we have considered and passed on in an opinion .this dajr delivered in Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, No. 84, of this term. The defendant demurred to the complaint, and when the demurrer was overruled answered. The answer alleged that the statute imposing the penalties was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, on the same grounds which we have to-day disposed of in the case .referred to: From a judgment awarding the penalties, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, this writ of error is prosecuted. For the reasons given in case No. 84 the judgment is
Affirmed.