Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co. facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co. |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 12, 1936 Decided November 9, 1936 |
|
| Full case name | Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co. |
| Citations | 299 U.S. 65 (more)
57 S. Ct. 51; 81 L. Ed. 42
|
| Holding | |
| An inquiry into indispensability would be unnecessary where the complaint did not state a cause of action. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sutherland |
| Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co. was an important decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1936. The case is officially recorded as 299 U.S. 65. The Supreme Court decided that if a lawsuit (called a "complaint") didn't clearly explain why someone was suing, then the court didn't need to decide if other important groups or people *had* to be part of the case.
Contents
What Was This Case About?
This case was about a disagreement over who owned the rights to drill for oil and gas in parts of Fresno County, California.
The Oil Company's Story
Pacific Western Oil Corporation was a company started in 1928 by Edward L. Doherty. Later, a famous businessman named J. Paul Getty took control of it. This company had special rights to drill for oil and gas in large areas of California.
The Landowner's Story
In the same area, there was a farmer who owned land. This landowner also believed they had rights to the minerals under their property. This led to a legal conflict between the farmer and the oil company.
The Lawsuit Begins
The landowner decided to sue the oil companies. The oil companies argued that they couldn't be sued without also including the U.S. government in the lawsuit. They said this because their drilling permits, called "leases," were given to them by the United States Secretary of State. This meant the government was involved in their operations.
The Court's Decision
The court looked at the oil companies' argument. However, the court disagreed with them. The main reason was that the original lawsuit from the landowner didn't properly explain the legal problem. Because the lawsuit itself wasn't clear, the court decided it didn't need to figure out if the U.S. government absolutely *had* to be part of the case.
