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.
Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al.; and Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al., 1954 — 348 U.S. 868 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al.; and Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al.
348 U.S. 868·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
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. 320.
No. 321.
Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al.; and Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al.
Jack T. Conn and Arthur R. Seder, Jr. for appellant in No. 320.
Clarence H. Ross and Warren T. Spies for appellant in No. 321.
D. H. Culton and Coleman Hayes for appellants in Nos. 320 and 321.
Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for the Corporation Commission, T. Murray Robinson and Leon Shipp for certain mineral owners in Texas County, Oklahoma; and Rayburn L. Foster, Harry D. Turner, R. M. Williams and Cecil C. Hamilton for the Phillips Petroleum Company, appellees.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Motion of Phillips Petroleum Company for leave to file motion to dismiss granted.
Reported below: 272 P. 2d 425.