Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Porterie

E.D. Louisiana

Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Porterie

12 F. Supp. 105, 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 766, 1935 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1303

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana

DecidedAugust 30, 1935

DocketNo. 261

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Supp. 105 (Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Porterie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Porterie, 12 F. Supp. 105, 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 766, 1935 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1303 (E.D. La. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BORAH, District Judge.

This 'case, like that of Standard Oil Company of Louisiana v. Gaston L. Porterie, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana (D. C.) 12 F. Supp. 100, this date decided, challenges the constitutionality of Act No. 19 of the Third Extra Session of the Louisiana Legislature (1934), and seeks to permanently enjoin the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana and those over whom he has authority and control from enforcing the provisions of said act. The facts and the issues in both cases are the same, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat here what already appears in the opinion on file.

For the reasons therein stated, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief herein prayed for, and a decree may be prepared and presented in conformity herewith.

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

BORAH, District Judge.

This 'case, like that of Standard Oil Company of Louisiana v. Gaston L. Porterie, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana (D. C.) 12 F. Supp. 100, this date decided, challenges the constitutionality of Act No. 19 of the Third Extra Session of the Louisiana Legislature (1934), and seeks to permanently enjoin the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana and those over whom he has authority and control from enforcing the provisions of said act. The facts and the issues in both cases are the same, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat here what already appears in the opinion on file.

For the reasons therein stated, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief herein prayed for, and a decree may be prepared and presented in conformity herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Supp. 105, 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 766, 1935 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-pipe-line-co-v-porterie-laed-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack