Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

(1985)

Supreme Court of the United States - 472 U.S. 797, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628, 472 U.S. 797, 86 L. Ed. 2d 628, 105 S. Ct. 2965, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 104, SCDB 1984-143

tl;dr:

Jurisdictional requirements of notice, and due process concerns, are less strict for class actions.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the 1985 case, Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, the US Supreme Court dealt with a class action lawsuit involving gas royalty owners and a gas company. The plaintiffs, who were from all 50 states and some foreign countries, accused the company of violating Kansas law by not paying interest on royalties within six months of production. The Kansas court found the company liable for $10.5 million in interest payments.

However, the company appealed, arguing that the Kansas court shouldn't handle claims for class members with no connection to Kansas and that Kansas law shouldn't apply to transactions outside the state. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the lower court's decision.

The case is important because it demonstrates class actions' principles and limitations in federal courts, which enable a few plaintiffs to represent a larger group with similar legal issues, promoting judicial efficiency and fairness. To be valid, class actions must meet specific criteria such as adequate representation, common issues, notice and opt-out rights, jurisdiction, and choice of law.

This case also highlights how courts can apply class actions to different claims involving numerous parties with various interests and locations.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingPhillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts case brief facts & holding

Facts:Phillips (Delaware Corp., PPOB in Oklahoma), gets gas from 11...

Holding:Kansas courts have jurisdiction over the absent plaintiffs, as this...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice Rehnquist
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

In a case where 28,000 royalty owners sued a Delaware corporation for delayed royalty payments, the Supreme Court rejected the corporation's jurisdictional claim but upheld their claim regarding the choice of law. The Kansas trial court certified the suit as a class action under Kansas law, finding the petitioner liable under Kansas law for interest on the suspended royalties to all class members. The court affirmed the award of interest on suspended royalties as a matter of Kansas equity law and set the post-judgment interest rate on all claims at the Kansas statutory rate of 15%. The issue of standing was raised, with the lower court's decision being upheld, as the Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner's argument that the minimum contacts requirement should apply to absent class-action plaintiffs.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Phillips Petroleum Co. sent a notice to royalty owners stating that they would only be paid royalties on firm proceeds, and royalties based on suspense money would be paid only after it was determined that the sums collected are no longer subject to refund. Only 17 royalty owners provided Phillips with an indemnity, and approximately 6,400 royalty owners who did not do so did not receive royalties on the suspense proceeds until 11 years later, after the price increase was finally approved. The lower court erred in its decision. The Kansas Supreme Court held Phillips Petroleum Co. liable for interest on suspense royalties and rejected the application of the statutory interest rate of 6% in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The court applied the "United States Rule" and rejected Phillips' argument that royalty owners had waived their claims to interest. The Kansas court's decision in the Shutts case did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause as it carefully considered the relevant laws of Oklahoma and Texas and gave careful consideration to any possible conflict of law problems in a multistate action. The Due Process Clause may be violated if a state's choice of law is fundamentally unfair or arbitrary to a litigant. However, this case does not violate due process because there are no significant conflicts between the laws of different states. The Court may disagree with the Kansas Supreme Court's statement that in a nationwide class action, the law of the forum should be applied unless compelling reasons exist for applying a different law.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Chat for Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
brief-304
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.