Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Okla., 340 U.S. 190 (1950)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1950-12-11
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “Our decision ... does not preclude the conviction of drug traffickers for the crime[ ] of possessing narcotics with intent to distribute_”
  • The court stated whether drug trafficking is a crime of violence is "at best, ambiguous."
  • A statement in the nature of an order or a request was not capable of being true or false; it was properly admitted to show its effect upon the person who heard it.
  • whether Congress intended statutory definition of “crime of violence” to include drug trafficking is ambiguous and such ambiguity precludes convicting defendants convicted of underlying narcotics offenses for use of firearms during commission of crime of violence
  • possession with intent to distribute narcotics is not a crime of violence

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
105 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Administrative Law — Rate Regulation — Equal Protection An order of a state corporation commission fixing a minimum wellhead price for all natural gas taken from a common reservoir field may validly apply to a producer-owner that does not purchase gas from other producers in the field, because the connection between realized price and conservation applies to all production in the field regardless of whether the producer purchases from others or owns pipelines, and where the field constitutes a common reservoir the commission must be able to regulate the operations of all producers if regulation of any is to be effective. 340 U.S. at 191-193
  2. Constitutional Law — Due Process A minimum wellhead price order is not unconstitutionally vague merely because an integrated producer's determination of proceeds realized from gas at the wellhead involves complicated problems in cost accounting, where such problems are common to a host of valid regulations and there is no indication the producer will be penalized for reasonable and good faith efforts to solve them. 340 U.S. at 193
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.v. OKLAHOMA,340 U.S. 190(1950)
71 S.Ct. 221
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.v. OKLAHOMA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.
No. 73.
Argued November 9-10, 1950.
Decided December 11, 1950.
Appellant is a producer of gas in an Oklahoma natural gas field, but does not purchase from other producers in that field. The gas which it produces is transported through its own facilities to Texas, where it processes the gas, utilizes or sells the by-products, and sells the residue of natural gas to pipe-line companies.Held:Orders of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission fixing a minimum wellhead price on all gas taken from the Oklahoma field, as applied to appellant, are not unreasonably vague and are valid under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 191-192.203 Okla. 35,220 P.2d 279, affirmed.
The validity under the Federal Constitution of orders
of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission fixing a minimum
wellhead price for gas taken from an Oklahoma
natural-gas field was sustained by the State Supreme
Court as applied to appellant.203 Okla. 35,220 P.2d 279.
On appeal to this Court,affirmed, p. 192.
Don EmeryandR. M. Williamsargued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief wereRayburn L.FosterandHarry D. Turner.T. Murray Robinsonargued the cause for the State of Oklahoma,Floyd Greenfor the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, andD. A. Richardsonfor the Peerless Oil Gas Co., appellees. With them on the brief wereMacQ. Williamson, Attorney General, andFred Hansen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Oklahoma, andThomas J. LeeandRichard H. Dunnfor the Commissioners of the Land Office of Oklahoma.Page 191
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case toCities Service Gas Co. v.Peerless Oil Gas Co.,340 U.S. 179, decided this date. Appellant is a producer in the Guymon-Hugoton Field, owning leases on approximately 183,000 acres, but unlike Cities Service it does not purchase from other producers in this field. It has its own gathering system through which gas is transported to a central point in Hansford County, Texas. There the gas is processed for the extraction of gasoline and other liquid hydrocarbons. These by-products are either utilized or sold, and the residue of natural gas is sold to pipe-line companies. Appellant's first appearance before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in connection with thePeerlessproceedings was on January 17, 1947, after the entry of the order setting a minimum price on all natural gas taken from the Guymon-Hugoton Field. Phillips moved that the Commission either vacate the order insofar as applicable to it, or clarify the application of the order to gas not actually sold at the wellhead. On February 4, 1947, the Commission issued Order No. 19702, refusing to vacate or further clarify its general minimum price order. The Commission concluded that Phillips had no standing to complain of the general order since the company was currently complying with it by realizing on the average, from sale and utilization of by-products and sale of gas, the minimum price set.

On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court consolidated the two cases and with respect to Phillips stated:
"Our discussion of the Cities Service appeal is here applicable. We find no basis in the due process and equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitutions for condemning the orders appealed from in their application to Phillips."203 Okla. 35,48,220 P.2d 279,292(1950).
Page 192

It is apparent from this opinion that the court below took jurisdiction and passed upon the constitutional issues raised. We assumed therefore that the court, noting the evidence of injury contained in the record, found no technical defects in the pleadings before the Commission which would deprive Phillips of standing to appeal. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal to this Court in order to secure a complete picture of the issues at stake.

Appellant does not argue that the orders violate the Commerce Clause. In other respects, the appeal presents only minor variations of the issues raised by Cities Service. Phillips argues that it is not a purchaser but merely a producer; that unlike the situation inCities Service, the order as applied to it lacks any connection with correlative rights, the interest of the public, monopolistic practices or discrimination. The distinction is without a difference: the connection between realized price and conservation applies to all production in the field, whether owners purchase from others or not, and whether they own pipe lines or not. In a field which constitutes a common reservoir of gas, the Commission must be able to regulate the operations of all producers or there is little point in regulating any.

Phillips also relies heavily on the contention that the orders are unreasonably vague. In substance, this argument is nothing more than that the determination by an integrated company of proceeds realized from gas at the wellhead involves complicated problems in cost accounting. These problems are common to a host of valid regulations. There is nothing to indicate that Phillips will be penalized for reasonable and good faith efforts to solve them.Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK is of the opinion that the alleged federal constitutional questions are frivolous and that the appeal therefore should be dismissed.Page 193