Double Eagle Lubricants, Inc. v. Texas

384 U.S. 434, 86 S. Ct. 1601, 16 L. Ed. 2d 670, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2950, 1966 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,787
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 6, 1966·No. 1177·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co., Inc. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm’n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U. S. 281.

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

Double Eagle Lubricants, Inc. v. Texas, 384 U.S. 434, 86 S. Ct. 1601, 16 L. Ed. 2d 670, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2950, 1966 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,787 (1966).

384 U.S. 434 (Double Eagle Lubricants, Inc. v. Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kellogg Co. v. Mattox
763 F. Supp. 1369 (N.D. Texas, 1991)
Home Savings Ass'n v. Guerra
720 S.W.2d 636 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
STATE OF LA., EX REL. GUSTE v. Fedders Corp.
543 F. Supp. 1022 (M.D. Louisiana, 1982)
Louisiana Ex Rel. Guste v. Fedders Corp.
524 F. Supp. 552 (M.D. Louisiana, 1981)
Riverside National Bank v. Lewis
603 S.W.2d 169 (Texas Supreme Court, 1980)
McIntire v. Estate of Forte
463 S.W.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Cohen v. Bredehoeft
290 F. Supp. 1001 (S.D. Texas, 1968)