RICHFIELD OIL CORP.
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1952-04-21
No. 395
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton, while adhering to their views expressed in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra, join in affirming the judgment of the District Court in this case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, not having heard the argument, owing to illness, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
343 U.S. 922 Supreme Court of the United States (1952) Caution
Cited by 25 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The Court is of the opinion that the issues raised by this appeal are substantially the same as those decided in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293 (1949). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton, while adhering to their views expressed in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, supra, join in affirming the judgment of the District Court in this case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter, not having heard the argument, owing to illness, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Lessig v. Tidewater OIL Co., 327 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1964)
    …T'mih lion. It sold^about 6.5% of-the total"? gasoline soUan~tffe~e]F5t western states. I . Standard Oil Co. of Cal. and Standard Stations v. United States, 337 U.S. 293, 69 S.Ct. 1051, 93 L.Ed. 1371 (1949). . Richfield Oil Corp. v. United States, 343 U.S. 922, 72 S.Ct. 665, 96 L.Ed. 1344 (1952), affirming per curiam Judge Tank-wich’s decision at 99 F.Supp. 280 (S.D. Cal.1951). . Compare United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 357, 83 S.Ct. 1715, 10 L.Ed.2d 915 (1963), with Tampa Elec. Co…
    1 / 2
  • Karseal Corp. v. Richfield OIL Corp., 221 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1955)
    …nd is an aftermath of the government’s civil antitrust action against Richfield Oil Corporation, (United States v. Richfield Oil Corporation), D.C.S.D.Cal.1951, 99 F.Supp. 280, affirmed per curiam in Richfield Oil Corporation v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 922, 72 S.Ct. 665, 96 L.Ed. 1334, hereafter called the Rich-field case. The case presents the sole question as to whether the amended complaint states a cause of action1 and therefore whether the motion to dismiss was properly granted by the trial judg…
  • Walker Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., 323 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1963)
    …was involved in the cases upon which appellants principally rely, Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1949, 337 U.S. 293, 69 S.Ct. 1051, 93 L.Ed. 1371, and United States v. Richfield Oil Corp., S.D.Cal., 1951, 99 F.Supp. 280, aff’d per curiam, 1952, 343 U.S. 922, 72 S.Ct. 665, 96 L.Ed. 1334. Those are Clayton Act, section 3 cases, not Sherman Act cases. In each, the oil company involved had in effect contracts or understandings with thousands of distributors which required, not only that they handle only th…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw