GULF OIL CORP.
v.
CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.

U.S. | 1957-06-17
No. 914
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
354 U.S. 916 Supreme Court of the United States (1957) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …asured up to his idea of what that amount should be. This court, in United States v. 6.74 Acres of Land, supra, has held precisely to the contrary. Cf. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 and Starr v. Nashville Housing Authority, 354 U.S. 916, 77 S.Ct. 1378, 1 L.Ed.2d 1432. The nature and purposes of the Declaration of Taking Act were described as follows in United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 381, 63 S.Ct. 276, 283, 87 L.Ed. 336: “The purpose of the statute is two-fold. First, to g…
  • United States v. Mischke, 285 F.2d 628 (8th Cir. 1961)
    …pra [327 U.S. 546] 554, [66 S.Ct. 715, at page-718, 90 L.Ed. 843]; United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 247 [67 S.Ct. 252, 260, 91 L.Ed. 209).” See, also Starr v. Nashville Housing Authority, D.C.M.D.Tenn., 145 F.Supp. 498,. affirmed per curiam, 354 U.S. 916, 77 S.. Ct. 1378, 1 L.Ed.2d 1432. In United States v. 6.74 Acres of Land", in Dade County, Fla., 5 Cir., 148 F. 2d. 618, 619, appears the following statement: “ * * * The necessity for the-taking was by the Congressional. Acts placed solely within…
  • United States v. Arison Agee, 322 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1963)
    …es, 263 U.S. 78, 44 S.Ct. 92, 68 L.Ed. 171; City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 50 S.Ct. 360, 74 L.Ed. 950; Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27; Starr v. Nashville Housing Authority, 145 F.Supp. 498 (M.D.Tenn.), affirmed, 354 U.S. 916, 77 S.Ct. 1378, 1 L.Ed.2d 1432. Finally, we find no merit in the argument of appellants that the landowner was deprived of his property without due process of law. Where the taking is for a public purpose, the rights of the property owner are satis…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw