Case Name: SUN OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Harry L. MARTIN et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-04-03
Citations: 330 F.2d 5
Docket Number: No. 20865
Parties: SUN OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Harry L. MARTIN et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 330
Pages: 5–9

Head Matter:
SUN OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Harry L. MARTIN et al., Appellees.
No. 20865.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 1964.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1964.
Edwin M. Cage, Dallas, Tex., Jack Skaggs, Carter, Stiernberg, Skaggs & Koppel, Harlingen, Tex., Charles F. Heidrick, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Joseph W. Moore, Fouts, Moore, Williams & Caldwell, Houston, Tex., for appellees V. F. Neuhaus and Rio Grande Valley Gas Company.
John W. Stayton, Black & Stayton, Austin, Tex., for appellee Harry L. Martin.
Leon Jaworski, Houston, Tex., amicus curiae.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment based on a carefully considered opinion of the district judge, dismissing the suit on the ground that the matter in controversy was one of which the Railroad Commission had primary jurisdiction and of which therefore the district court was without jurisdiction.
The question is exhaustively and well argued in the briefs of the parties, in a brief amicus curiae filed in this court, in the reply thereto, and also in the opinion of the district judge, and we are of the view that it would be to pile Pelion on Ossa for us to attempt further elucidation. We are content, therefore, to say that, for the reasons set out by the district judge in his opinion the judgment is right and should be affirmed.
We are well aware of the interest and importance of questions presented and argued here, and, but for the fact already noted that the district judge has dealt with the matters so fully and so correctly in his opinion, we should feel called upon to enter upon a lengthy discussion of the general principle of primary jurisdiction and to demonstrate the propriety of its application in this case. The district judge has, however, exhaustively and we think correctly canvassed and discussed the facts and issue in this case as they bear upon the question decided and has cited and discussed most of the applicable authorities. It is sufficient, therefore, to say without more that we approve and adopt the district judge's opinion and the conclusions based thereon and affirm his judgment.
Affirmed.
. Sun Oil Co. v. Martin et al., 218 F.Supp. 618.