Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Fox v. Standard Oil Company Of New Jersey

• 1934 • 294 U.S. 87 • Hughes Court
In the case of Fox v. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, 1934, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Standard Oil. The plaintiff, Fox Film Corporation had sued for damages after a fire destroyed its property. The fire was caused by an explosion at a nearby oil storage facility owned by Standard Oil Company. However, the court found that there was no negligence on part of Standard Oil as they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents and could not have foreseen...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1934
Docket: 69
294 U.S. 87
55 S. Ct. 333
79 L. Ed. 780
1935 U.S. LEXIS 263
Argued: Nov 09, 1934

Fox v. Standard Oil Company Of New Jersey

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Fox v. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, 1934, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Standard Oil. The plaintiff, Fox Film Corporation had sued for damages after a fire destroyed its property. The fire was caused by an explosion at a nearby oil storage facility owned by Standard Oil Company. However, the court found that there was no negligence on part of Standard Oil as they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents and could not have foreseen or prevented this particular incident which occurred due to an act of vandalism (a third party opened one of their oil valves). Therefore, it held that without proof of negligence leading directly to damage suffered by another party, liability cannot be established under common law principles.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for FOX v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Fox's claim was incorrect because it failed to consider whether Standard Oil had violated antitrust laws by selling gasoline at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business. He believed that this practice constituted predatory pricing and should be considered illegal under federal law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that Fox lacked standing as an indirect purchaser, arguing instead that any party injured by such anti-competitive practices should have legal recourse regardless of their position in the supply chain. In his view, denying such parties access to justice would undermine competition and harm consumers.

Opinion written by Justice BNCardozo
Decided: Jan 14, 1935
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms