Leh v. General Petroleum Corporation Page 12

Leh v. General Petroleum Corporation general information

Media for Leh v. General Petroleum Corporation

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 11, 1965 in Leh v. General Petroleum Corporation

Richard G. Harris:

However -- and these, we submit, are quite relevant and are based on, at least in part, the government case.

However, when you get over to the overt acts which we allege, which of course are the things most often referred to in the decisions, at page 21 of the appendix, paragraph 22, the overt acts are practically parallel with the charge of the government complaint.

And it was from the overt acts that I quoted at the start of my argument, and I won't re-quote them but, considering page 21, I don't think we have any question that we're talking about, in the language again of the Minnesota Mining case the matters complained of by the government in its case.

And then, finally, there can be no question that the Ninth Circuit relied upon Steiner from simply considering the opinion which is part of the petition for certiorari, of course.

It's true they cited the Nisley case in a footnote.

However, the Ninth Circuit said “from Steiner versus Twentieth-Century-Fox Film Corporation, supra, this Court has already held” and then set forth the test of Steiner “(a), (b), (c),” then said “none of these tests are met.”

Now, the Steiner case has not been repudiated.

They did not state the Nisley test.

They quoted Nisley in a footnote but it was no question that Steiner was applied by the Ninth Circuit.

Thank you.