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.
Leh et al. v. General Petroleum Corp. et al., 1964 — 379 U.S. 877 · caselaw · US
General
Leh et al. v. General Petroleum Corp. et al.
379 U.S. 877·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
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. 348.
Leh et al. v. General Petroleum Corp. et al.
Maxwell Keith for petitioners. Howard Painter, Francis R. Kirkham, William E. Mussman, Thomas E. Haven, George W. Jansen, Charles E. Beardsley, Jack E. Woods, Moses Lasky, Wayne H. Knight and Edmund D. Buckley for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Question 6 presented by the petition which reads as follows:
“Whether the statute of limitations was foiled by Section 5 of the Clayton Act during the pendency of the Government’s action in United States v. Standard Oil Company of California, et al. (Civil No. 11584-C)?”