Supreme Court of the United States, 1924

Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 5, 1924

265 U.S. 569 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. John M. Woolsey and Mr. W. H. McGrann, for petitioner, in support of the motion. Mr. Charles C. Burlingham, Mr. Ray Rood Allen and Mr. A. Howard Neely, for respondents, in opposition to the motion.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. Southern Pacific Company (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The motion for leave to take additional testimony is granted, such testimony to be taken, however, in accordance with Rule 12, paragraph 2, of the rules of this Court, to be limited to the subject matter specified in the motion, and to be upon interrogatories presented and *570served upon the opposite party by the petitioner on or before the 1st day of June next, and upon cross-interrogatories to be filed on or before the 20th day of June next. The commission with the interrogatories for the taking of said testimony shall issue to the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the interrogatories and the evidence taken shall be forwarded to this Court on or before the 1st day of September next. The costs of the commission, when incurred, shall be paid by the petitioner.

Mr. John M. Woolsey and Mr. W. H. McGrann, for petitioner, in support of the motion. Mr. Charles C. Burlingham, Mr. Ray Rood Allen and Mr. A. Howard Neely, for respondents, in opposition to the motion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.