UNITED STATES of America
v.
The AMERICAN OIL COMPANY et al., Defendants.
United States District Court D. New Jersey.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 4, 1966.
May 4, 1966.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., by Donald Horowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Bernard Wehrmann, Dept. of Justice, for the Government.
McCarter & English, by Merritt Lane, Jr., Newark, N. J., for The Atlantic Refining Co., and Howrey, Simon, Baker & Murchison, by Harold F. Baker, Terrence C. Sheehy, Washington, D. C., Edward J. Kremer, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.
Pitney, Hardin & Kipp, by Donald B. Kipp, Newark, N. J., for Sinclair Refining Co., and Wickes, Riddell, Bloomer, Jacobi & McGuire, by Harold F. McGuire, D. K. McIntosh, Frank R. Clampitt, J. Howard Marshall, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Carey & Jardine, by Robert Carey, Jr., Newark, N. J., for Gulf Oil Corp., and Kissam & Halpin, New York City, by Leo T. Kissam, Anthony S. Genovese, Frederick L. Scofield, Arthur Vangeli, New York City, Jesse P. Luton, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel.
Stickel & Stickel, by Fred G. Stickel, Jr., Newark, N. J., for The American Oil Co., and Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, by Hammond E. Chaffetz, Chicago, Ill., Ronald S. Daniels, New York City, Sam L. Erwin, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Milton, Keane & DeBona, by Joseph Keane, Jersey City, N. J., for Cities Service Oil Co., and for Cities Service Co., and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, by Simon H. Rifkind, Jay H. Topkis, George H. Colin, New York City, of counsel.
Stryker, Tams & Dill, by William L. Dill, Jr., Newark, N. J., for Humble Oil and Refining Co., and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, by A. Donald MacKinnon, Henry F. Hartmann, New York City, Dillard W. Baker, Houston, Tex., of counsel.
Riker, Danzig, Scherer & Brown, by Dickinson R. DeBevoise, Newark, N. J., for Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., and Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, by John E. F. Wood, Edward N. Sherry, Charles F. Rice, New York City, of counsel.
United States District Court D. New Jersey.
WORTENDYKE, District Judge.
The defendants herein heretofore moved the Court for a dismissal of the indictment upon the ground that the Grand Jury which returned the indictment was improperly constituted and impanelled by reason of the systematic and deliberate exclusion therefrom of women. That motion was denied for the reasons set forth in the Court's Opinion filed in this cause December 30, 1965, 249...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
