CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY
v.
The UNITED STATES.
City of Los Angeles, Southern California Edison Company, California Electric Power Company, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Third Parties.
CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES COMPANY
v.
The UNITED STATES.
City of Los Angeles, Southern California Edison Company, California Electric Power Company, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Third Parties.
United States Court of Claims.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
March 6, 1957.
March 6, 1957.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Arthur S. Friedman, New York City, for plaintiff in No. 364-55.
Milton S. Gould, New York City, Ellis Lyons, Washington, D. C., and Gallop, Climenko & Gould, New York City, were on the brief.
Ezekiel G. Stoddard, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in No. 381-55. Arnold M. Lerman and Cox, Langford, Stoddard & Cutler, Washington, D. C., were on the brief.
Walter Kiechel, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. George Cochran Doub, for defendant. Francis J. Robinson, Arlington, Va., and Gerson B. Kramer, Silver Spring, Md., were on the brief.
John H. Mathews, Los Angeles, Cal., for City of Los Angeles. Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Los Angeles, Cal., and Ely, McCarty & Duncan, Washington, D. C., were on the brief.
Edmund L. Jones, Washington, D. C., for the Southern California Edison Co. Arthur J. Phelan, Paul R. Connolly, Washington, D. C., Bruce Renwick, and Harry W. Sturges, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., were on the brief.
Edmund L. Jones, Washington, D. C., for California Electric Power Co. Henry W. Coil and Donald J. Carman, Riverside, Cal., were on the brief.
James H. Howard, Los Angeles, Cal., for Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California. Donald M. Keith and John W. Dickey, Los Angeles, Cal., were on the brief.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges.
United States Court of Claims.
MADDEN, Judge.
The plaintiffs sue the United States for damages because the United States refused to renew their contracts for electrical energy produced at the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River. The two suits have been consolidated since they involve the same issues. The four "third parties" were brought into the case on notices, requested by the United States and issued by the court pursuant to its Rule 19. The facts in the cases appear from undisputed documents...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
