Contracts · MBE-tested
Richfield Oil Corp. v. United States
343 U.S. 922·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton, while adhering to their views expressed in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra, join in affirming the judgment of the District Court in this case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, not having heard the argument, owing to illness, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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. 395.
Richfield Oil Corp. v. United States.
Argued April 1-2, 1952.
Decided April 21, 1952.
Robert E. Paradise argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was William J. DeMartini. Assistant Attorney General Morison argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, James L. Morrisson and J. Roger Wollenberg.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The Court is of the opinion that the issues raised by this appeal are substantially the same as those decided in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293 (1949). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton, while adhering to their views expressed in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra, join in affirming the judgment of the District Court in this case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, not having heard the argument, owing to illness, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.