Mid-Valley Pipeline Co. v. King
393 U.S. 321, 89 S. Ct. 556, 21 L. Ed. 2d 517, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2869
Opinion
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mid-Valley Pipeline Co. v. King, 393 U.S. 321, 89 S. Ct. 556, 21 L. Ed. 2d 517, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2869 (1969).
393 U.S. 321 (Mid-Valley Pipeline Co. v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Baten v. McMaster
374 F. Supp. 3d 563 (D. South Carolina, 2019)
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott
369 F. Supp. 3d 768 (W.D. Texas, 2019)
Lyman v. Baker
352 F. Supp. 3d 81 (District of Columbia, 2018)
Conant v. Brown
248 F. Supp. 3d 1014 (D. Oregon, 2017)
McInnish v. Bennett
150 So. 3d 1045 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2014)
Philip Landry v. Judge J. Robert Hoepfner and William Guste, Jr., Attorney General, State of Louisiana
840 F.2d 1201 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)
Edwards v. State
422 So. 2d 84 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment
81 Misc. 2d 696 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Colonial Pipeline Company v. Agerton
289 So. 2d 93 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
City of Fort Lauderdale v. Byrd
242 So. 2d 494 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Walker v. Hampton
235 So. 2d 325 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)