Document: 415 U.S. 125 94 S.Ct. 1002 39 L.Ed.2d 209 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANYv.TEXACO, INC. No. 73—347. Decided Feb. 19, 1974. PER CURIAM: 1 The respondent, Texaco, brought this action against the petitioner, Phillips Petroleum Co., in Northern District of Oklahoma. complaint asserted that Texaco had not been compensated for helium constituent natural gas sold by to Phillips. claimed it was entitled reasonable value addition sums already paid under contract sale. It is conceded there no diversity citizenship between parties. Accordingly, relied, as basis federal jurisdiction, on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), asserting its claim '(arose) Constitution, laws, or treaties United States.' moved dismiss want jurisdiction subject matter. Court granted motion, and appealed Appeals Tenth Circuit, which a divided vote reversed Court's determination lacking. seeks certiorari review Circuit's decision contends past decisions make clear Texaco's cannot be said 'aris(e) 2 substantive case an outgrowth earlier Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 441 F.2d 704 (1971). That interpleader action, held lessee-producers could recover contained they produced pipeline companies, later extracted marketed helium. essence Grounds rejection buyers' contention price compensation 'the stream entirety and, absent express reservation, (that) buyer gets whole such purposes may determine.'1 Id., at 720. reasoned that, result Helium Act Amendments 1960, 74 Stat. 922, added 11 (50 167i) Conservation Act, 43 1110, . FPC fixed service rates, do apply' '(a) sale commingled component (natural) stream.' F.2d, 721. concluded reconciliation 1960 amendments requires conclusion rates apply deny recovery helium' lessee-producers. 723. (Emphasis added.) court went hold therefore content processed gas.' 3 Because presence did consider whether existed independent exercise jurisdiction. read together imply cause gas. On other hand, Phillips' position only effect these statutory provisions preclude defense payment quasi-contractual Hence, argues questions raised are part but merely anticipation probable 4 This has repeatedly order arise 'under States,' ' right immunity created Constitution laws States must element, essential one, plaintiff's action.' Gully First National Bank Meridian, 299 109, 112, 57 96, 97, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936). 'must disclosed upon face complaint, unaided answer.' Moreover, itself will avail so far goes beyond statement anticipates replies defense.' Gully, supra, 113, 98. See also Metcalf Watertown, 128 586, 9 947, 38 861 (1888); Tennessee Union & Planters' Bank, 152 454, 14 654, 511 (1894); Louisville Nashville R. Mottley, 211 149, 29 42, 53 126 (1908); Taylor Anderson, 234 74, 34 724, 58 1218 (1914); Skelly Oil 339 667, 876, 1194 (1950). 5 properly creating deriving from sanctioned Federal Power Commission. Indeed, commenting decision, present 'satisfactory utility regulation does permit rate used obtain commodity within contemplation rate.' 481 70, 73. In words, simply established permitted Commission authority regarded suit short, create recovery, interposition plea defeat helium.2 6 is, effect, quantum meruit, whose source state law law. Cf. Oneida Indian Nation County Oneida, 414 661, 772, 73 (1974). To extent bear gas, their more than overcome potential action. Under settled precedent our noted above, thus 'arises 1331(a). 7 petition writ granted, judgment reversed. 8 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS BRENNAN dissent summary disposition without full briefing oral argument. They would grant set WHITE took consideration case. here accordance with Commission, establish 1938, 52 821, 15 §§ 717—717w. pointed any language either legislative history enactments circumstances

Category: 8