Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. ChamplIn Refining Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 07, 1951

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

32 entries 32 unlinked
Show
  1. United States v. Champlin
    Search
  2. Refining Co. - 341 U.S. 290 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Champlin
    Search
  3. Refining Co., 341 U.S. 290 (1951) United States v. Champlin
    Search
  4. or other pipeline company has requested a connection with appellee. In an earlier proceeding, Champlin Refining Co. v. United
    Search
  5. Champlin Refining Co. v. United
    Search
  6. independent statutory issue on a proper record. The reasons for this approach were suggested in Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  7. Pipe Line Cases, supra, at 334 U. S. 560 . And see Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  8. That definition was held in Champlin Refining Co. v. United
    Search
  9. U. S. 548 , 234 U. S. 561 -562, and the view expressed in the dissent in Champlin Refining Co. v. United
    Search
  10. at in the Pipe Line Cases, 234 U. S. 548 (where this section was involved), nor in Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  11. nor in our decision in the first Champlin case, Champlin Rfg. Co. v. United
    Search
  12. so. I would not overrule either. Nor do I understand how today's holding can be reconciled with Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  13. between the same parties unless there is a departure from the principles most recently announced in United States v. Munsingwear
    Search
  14. the Munsingwear principle when the effect (as distinguished from the language) of their decision is considered. V Why
    Search
  15. Pierce Oil Corp. v. Phoenix
    Search
  16. held that subsequent minor modifications changed neither the purpose nor the meaning of the Act. Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  17. Champlin Rfg. Co. v. United
    Search
  18. Pipe Line as a Common Carrier, 32 Cornell L.Q. 337, 341. For history of Standard Oil practices, see Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  19. United States v. Standard
    Search
  20. As to the danger involved in interpreting this Act as aimed at a single corporation, see McFarland v. American
    Search
  21. United States v. Elgin
    Search
  22. United States v. South
    Search
  23. does not appear in the record. But the exact number cannot have legal significance here. See Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  24. Enid refinery than is Superior. The effect of such control was pointed out long ago by this Court in Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Champlin
    Search
  26. Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Munsingwear
    Search
  28. of the Act. Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  29. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  30. McFarland v. American
    Search
  31. United States v. Elgin
    Search
  32. See Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial