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.
Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al., 1966 — 385 U.S. 991 · caselaw · US
General
Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al.
385 U.S. 991·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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. 690.
Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al.
A. A. White and Ben H. Schleider, Jr., for petitioner.
Leroy Jeffers for respondent Phillips Petroleum Co., and John W. Barnum for respondents Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. et al.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice would grant the petition and reverse the judgments of the lower courts. Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U. S. 207, and Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U. S. 656.