Continental Oil Co. v. United States

Supreme Court

Continental Oil Co. v. United States

299 U.S. 510

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 12, 1936·No. No. 225·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The application for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims is dismissed upon the ground that it is premature, without prejudice to a renewal of the application after action by the Court of Claims on the [511]*511motion for amendment of the special findings. The motion to defer consideration of the application for certiorari is denied.

Mr. Arthur B. Hyman for petitioner. Solicitor General Reed for the United States.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The application for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims is dismissed upon the ground that it is premature, without prejudice to a renewal of the application after action by the Court of Claims on the [511]*511motion for amendment of the special findings. The motion to defer consideration of the application for certiorari is denied.

Mr. Arthur B. Hyman for petitioner. Solicitor General Reed for the United States.

Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 510 (1936).

Pincite

299 U.S. 510 (Continental Oil Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Louis Gaudiosi, Charles Schwartz, and Randolph Phillips, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company Similarly Situated v. Richard K. Mellon, Robert T. McCracken C. Jared Ingersoll, Walter S. Franklin, James E. Gowen, Philip R. Clarke, James M. Symes, John A. Diemand, John B. Hollister, Lammot Dup. Copeland, Donald Danforth, R. George Rincliffe, William L. Day, Otto N. Frenzel, Fred Carpi, David C. Bevan, James P. Newell, Directors and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation, Incorporated Under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Louis Gaudiosi, Charles Schwartz and Randolph Phillips, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company Similarly Situated v. Walter S. Franklin, Richard K. Mellon, Robert T. McCracken C. Jared Ingersoll, James E. Gowen, Philip R. Clarke, James M. Symes, John A. Diemand, John B. Hollister, Lammot Dup. Copeland, Donald Danforth, R. George Rincliffe, William L. Day, Otto N. Frenzel, Fred Carpi, David C. Bevan, James P. Newell, Directors: Bayard H. Roberts and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation Incorporated Under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Five Cases)

269 F.2d 873 (Third Circuit, 1959)

Gaudiosi v. Mellon

269 F.2d 873 (Third Circuit, 1959)

Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.

318 U.S. 203 (Supreme Court, 1943)

Philadelphia v. Union Traction Co.

304 U.S. 543 (Supreme Court, 1938)

Opinion

Related