Jump to content

Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co.: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Further reading: Various citation & identifier cleanup, plus AWB genfixes. using AWB
m replace context tag with expand tag
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Context|date=October 2009}}
{{expand article|date=May 2012}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co.
|Litigants=Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co.

Revision as of 20:42, 17 May 2012

The template {{Expand}} has been deprecated since 26 December 2010, and is retained only for old revisions. If this page is a current revision, please remove the template.

Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co.
Argued October 12, 1936
Decided November 9, 1936
Full case nameBourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co.
Citations299 U.S. 65 (more)
Holding
An inquiry into indispensability would be unnecessary where the complaint did not state a cause of action.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinion
MajoritySutherland
Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 299 U.S. 65 (1936), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an inquiry into indispensability would be unnecessary where the complaint did not state a cause of action.

See also

Further reading

  • Colby, Wm. E. (1942). "The Law of Oil and Gas: With Special Reference to the Public Domain and Conservation". California Law Review. 30 (3): 245–271. doi:10.2307/3477673. JSTOR 3477673. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

Text of Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 299 U.S. 65 (1936) is available from: Findlaw Justia