United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 149 (1952)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
In 1941 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. (Caltex) (defendant), along with other companies (the oil companies) (defendants), owned and operated terminal facilities in Manila, Philippines. These facilities received, handled, and stored petroleum products. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, the United States began preparing for an attack on Manila. When it became clear that the enemy would overtake Manila, the commanding general of the United States Army ordered the destruction of the oil companies’ facilities and remaining petroleum products in Manila so that they would not become an asset to the enemy. The facilities were requisitioned by the United States Army, and an engineer from one of the facilities was commissioned to design their destruction. Any items useful to the United States Army were removed, and the remainder of the facilities were demolished as Japanese troops were entering Manila. Before the demolition, Caltex demanded and received a receipt for the terminal facilities and Caltex stock. After the end of World War II, the oil companies demanded compensation for the facilities and petroleum products. The federal government paid for petroleum stocks and transportation equipment but would not pay for the terminal facilities. The oil companies filed an action in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims ordered that the oil companies be compensated for the terminal facilities. The United States appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vinson, C.J.)
Dissent (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

