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.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION v. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., 1965 — 381 U.S. 762 · caselaw · US
General
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION v. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.
381 U.S. 762·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION v. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.
No. 1024.
Decided June 7, 1965.
Solicitor General Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Robert L. Russell and Peter H. Schiff for petitioner in No. 1024.
Herbert E. Squires and Joseph C. Bruno for petitioner in No. 1025.
,/. P. Hammond, William J. Grove and Carroll L. Gilliam for respondent in both cases.
Together with No. 1025, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pan American Petroleum Cory., also on petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgment is reversed. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co., and Federal Power Comm’n v. Man, ante, p. 392.