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.
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al.; and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al.
312 U.S. 665·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
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. 268.
No. 269.
Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al.; and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. United States et al.
March 17, 1941.
[MAJORITY]
It is ordered that in the sentence beginning on line 6 of page 2 of the opinion handed down March 3, 1941, after the words “These acts stifled” and before the word “Panhandle’s” there be inserted the words “, so'it was claimed,”.
It is further ordered that the paragraph beginning on page 4 of the opinion be stricken from the opinion and that the following paragraph be added in its place:
“A final contention in support of the order remains. It is based on two prior denials of motions by Mokan to intervene. Treating Mokan’s motions as made on its own behalf on the score of its ownership of more than forty percent of Panhandle’s stock, the district court denied the motions. Appeals from these denials were dismissed by the circuit court of appeals, 108 F. 2d 614, and we denied certiorari, 309 U. S. 687. The denials are now urged as res judicata. But they were a rejection of Mokan’s attempt to intervene in its own behalf. In neither instance was the relief denied deemed a mode of enforcing Panhandle’s rights under Sections IV and V of the Decree. The earlier denials involved different legal claims from that now asserted, and, therefore, are no bar to the present proceeding.”
The petition for rehearing in No. 268 is denied.