ERVIN R. OLTMANN, D/B/A CROSSROADS OIL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MOBIL OIL COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the case arose under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff sued Mobil, alleging breach of contract and violation of price regulations under the Economic Stabilization Act. After a trial court judgmen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Price Regulations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff sued Mobil in state court. Mobil removed to federal district court, asserting that the action arose under federal law. After trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals to this court and defendant moves to dismiss the appeal.
Except as otherwise provided in § 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (the Act), 12 U.S.C. § 1904 Note, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals from district courts in cases and controversies arising under the Act. Section 211(b)(2). We look to the allegations of the complaint to determine whether this case arose under the Act. St. Mary’s Hospital of East St. Louis, Inc. v. Ogilvie, 496 F. 2d 1324 (7th Cir. 1974).
The amended complaint states that this “cause arises out of a breach of a wholesale agreement between [the parties] and a breach and violation of the price regulations of the Federal Energy Office, pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act.” The complaint pairs each allegation of breach of the agreement with an allegation of violation of the price regulations. The plaintiff’s proposed conclusions of law and post-trial brief make it clear that the allegations of a breach of contract depended entirely upon a theory that, by operation of law, the regulations extended the contractual relationship beyond what would otherwise have been its termination by appropriate notice. All the issues raised on appeal concern regulations issued under the Act. Any possible ambiguity in the complaint concerning the source of the controversy is resolved by the substance of the proceedings at trial. Thus we conclude that the allegations of the complaint involve no controversy which did not arise under the Act.
Plaintiff requested that if we conclude we have no jurisdiction of the appeal, we transfer it to the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals. We have no authority to do so. Grand Blanc Education Association v. Grand Blanc Board of Education, 624 F. 2d 47, 49 (6th Cir. 1980); see United States v. Wickland, 619 F. 2d 75 (TECA 1980).
The appeal is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rainey v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal., 732 F.2d 1563 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Al Wickland, 619 F.2d 75 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1980)
- ST. Mary's Hosp. OF E. ST. Louis, Inc. v. Ogilvie, 496 F.2d 1324 (7th Cir. 1974)
- Grand Blanc Educ. Ass'n v. Grand Blanc Bd. OF Educ., 624 F.2d 47 (6th Cir. 1980)