Hastings v. Selby Oil & Gas Co.

319 U.S. 348, 63 S. Ct. 1114, 87 L. Ed. 1443, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 620
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 21, 1943·No. 528·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Me. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action in the nature of an equity proceeding brought by the respondents to cancel an order of the Texas Railroad Commission granting petitioners Hastings and Dodson a permit under Rule 37 of the Railroad Commission to drill an oil well. The respondents contend that the order granting a permit to the petitioners deprives them of property without due process of law, and that the order is invalid as a matter of Texas law. Jurisdiction is rested on diversity of citizenship.

There are no significant differences between the problems presented here and those in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., ante, p. 315. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, the decision below is reversed and the cause is. remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

It is so ordered.

The Chief Justice, Me. Justice Robeets, Me. Justice Reed, and Me. Justice Feankfuetee dissent for the reasons stated by them in dissent to Burjord v. Sun Oil Co., ante, p. 315.

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

Hastings v. Selby Oil & Gas Co., 319 U.S. 348, 63 S. Ct. 1114, 87 L. Ed. 1443, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 620 (1943).

319 U.S. 348 (Hastings v. Selby Oil & Gas Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schultz v. Coral Gables Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
505 F. Supp. 1003 (S.D. Florida, 1981)
Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton
335 F. Supp. 947 (D. New Hampshire, 1971)
Hastings v. Selby Oil & Gas Co.
320 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court, 1943)