Palmer Oil Corp. v. Amerada Petroleum Corp. Farwell v. Amerada Petroleum Corp.
Administrative Proceeding Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. Nos. 301, 302

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (26) Tab Overlap Cited By (2) Right End

343 U.S. 390

72 S.Ct. 842

96 L.Ed. 1022

PALMER OIL CORP. et al.
v.
AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. et al. FARWELL et al. v. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. et al.

Nos. 301, 302.

Argued April 25, 1952.

Decided May 12, 1952.

Mr. Mark H. Adams, Wichita, Kan., for Palmer Oil Corp. and others.

Mr. Reford Bond, Jr., Chickasha, Okl., for Farwell and others.

Mr. R. M. Williams, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Amerada Petroleum Corp. and others.

PER CURIAM.

1

These two appeals challenge the constitutionality of Okla.Stat. 1941 (Cum.Supp.1949) Tit. 52, §§ 286.1—286.17, providing for unitized management of common sources of supply of oil and gas in Oklahoma. This statute was repealed by the Oklahoma Legislature on May 26, 1951, Okl.Laws 1951, c. 3a, § 16, p. 142, and we ordered the causes continued in order to determine the effect of this repeal on the matters raised in these appeals. 1951, 342 U.S. 35, 72 S.Ct. 11. After being advised by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that this repeal had no effect on these causes, we noted probable jurisdiction and heard argument.

2

Appellants contend that this statute and an order issued thereunder by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission impair their contractual rights in violation of U.S.Const., Art. 1, § 10, and amount to a denial of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, appellants argue that the statute is an unreasonable exercise of the State's police power and an unreasonable delegation of legislative and judicial power to private groups. In addition, appellants maintain that the statute is too vague and indefinite to furnish the Commission with any reasonable guide for the issuance of orders approving unitization plans, and that the evidence does not support the Commission's findings of fact.

3

In the light of our previous decisions, appellants have failed to raise any substantial federal questions and the appeals are therefore dismissed. Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 1950, 340 U.S. 179, 71 S.Ct. 215, 95 L.Ed. 190; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 1941, 311 U.S. 570, 61 S.Ct. 343, 85 L.Ed. 358; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U.S. 573, 60 S.Ct. 1021, 84 L.Ed. 1368, as amended, 1940, 311 U.S. 614, 615, 61 S.Ct. 66, 85 L.Ed. 390; Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 1939, 305 U.S. 376, 59 S.Ct. 259, 83 L.Ed. 321; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 1934, 290 U.S. 398, 435, 436, 437, 54 S.Ct. 231, 239, 240, 78 L.Ed. 413; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 1932, 286 U.S. 210, 52 S.Ct. 559, 76 L.Ed. 1062.

4

Dismissed.

Statistics

This case has been viewed 36 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?