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.
Osage Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Fayetteville, 1975 — 423 U.S. 941 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Osage Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Fayetteville
423 U.S. 941·Supreme Court of the United States·1975
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
November 11, 1975
No. 75-434.
Osage Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Fayetteville.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of cases in which orders hereinafter reported were announced on this date, with the exception of the following:
No. 74-1110, Eastern Kentucky Welfare Bights Organization v. Simon, infra, p. 943; No. 74-1124, Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, infra, p. 943; No. 74-1445, Bynum v. United States, infra, p. 952; No. 74-6411, Birnbaum v. United States, infra, p. 952; No. 75-62, Runyon v. McCrary, infra, p. 945; No. 75-66, Fairfax-Brewster School, Inc. v. Gonzales, infra, p. 945; No. 75-112, Saler V. Kreiger, infra, p. 946; No. 75-150, Flores v. United States, infra, p. 946; No. 75-152, Whorley v. Virginia, infra, p. 946; No. 75-216, Saenz v. United States, infra, p. 946; No. 75-236, Kutler v. United States, infra, p. 959; No. 75-278, Southern Independent School Assn. v. McCrary, infra, p. 945; No. 75-302, Small v. Pangle, infra, p. 944; No. 75-306, McCrary v. Runyon, infra, p. 945; No. 75-377, Ludwig v. Massachusetts, infra, p. 945; No. 75-428, McKinney v. Parsons, infra, p. 960; No. 75-434, Osage Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Fayetteville, infra, this page; No. 75-467, Wiethe v. Curry, infra, this page; and No. 75-5046, Quesada v. United States, infra, p. 946.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ark. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.