Legal Opinion
Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 3, 1939No. 113PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Per curiam
In this suit, brought to recover his share of oil royalties, the plaintiff challenged the validity, under the contract clause and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, of the Well-Spacing Act of the State of Oklahoma (Chap. 59, Okla. Sess. Laws 1935) and an order made thereunder by the Corporation Commission of that State. The Supreme Court of the State, affirming the judgment of the District Court with a modification immaterial here, sustained the validity of the statute and order. 182 Okla. 155; 77 P. 2d 83. The plaintiff…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Corporation Commission of OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Sproles v. BinfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Veix v. Sixth Ward Building & Loan Assn. of NewarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Cameron v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
- Hunter Co. v. McHughSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1942
- Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Texaco, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1994
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.