Sun Oil Company v. Harry L. Martin

330 F.2d 5
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 1964
Docket20865_1
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 330 F.2d 5 (Sun Oil Company v. Harry L. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sun Oil Company v. Harry L. Martin, 330 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1964).

Opinions

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment based on a carefully considered opinion1 of the district judge, dismissing the suit on the ground that the matter in controversy was one of which the Railroad Commission had primary jurisdiction and of which therefore the district court was without jurisdiction.

The question is exhaustively and well argued in the briefs of the parties, in a brief amicus curiae filed in this court, in the reply thereto, and also in the opinion of the district judge, and we are of the view that it would be to pile Pelion on Ossa for us to attempt further elucidation. We are content, therefore, to say that, for the reasons set out by the district judge in his opinion the judgment is right and should be affirmed.

We are well aware of the interest and importance of questions presented and argued here, and, but for the fact already noted that the district judge has dealt with the matters so fully and so correctly in his opinion, we should feel called upon to enter upon a lengthy discussion of the general principle of primary jurisdiction and to demonstrate the propriety of its application in this case. The district judge has, however, [6]*6exhaustively and we think correctly canvassed and discussed the facts and issue in this case as they bear upon the question decided and has cited and discussed most of the applicable authorities. It is sufficient, therefore, to say without more that we approve and adopt the district judge’s opinion and the conclusions based thereon and affirm his judgment.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ring Energy v. Trey Res., Inc.
546 S.W.3d 199 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017)
Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., LC
331 S.W.3d 419 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Arkla Exploration Co. v. Haywood, Rice & William Venture
863 S.W.2d 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Mound Co.
229 F. Supp. 422 (E.D. Louisiana, 1964)
Sun Oil Company v. Harry L. Martin
330 F.2d 5 (Fifth Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
330 F.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-oil-company-v-harry-l-martin-ca5-1964.