Continental Oil Co. v. United States
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Being convinced on the record before us that Maleo Refineries, Inc., was not a “failing company,”
United States v. Third National Bank, 390 U. S. 171, 183 (1968);
International Shoe Co.
v. FTC, 280 U. S. 291 (1930), and that the record otherwise supports the decree, United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U. S. 546 (1966), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Mr. Justice Harlan, believing that this case involves issues of fact and law which should not be decided without plenary consideration, would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.