PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent,
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company; County of Wayne, Michigan; Michigan Public Service Commission; Intervenors.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued April 12, 1962.
Decided June 30, 1962.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Chicago, Ill., with whom Messrs. Harry S. Littman and Raymond N. Shibley, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Dale A. Wright, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner.
Mr. Peter H. Schiff, Atty., Federal Power Commission, with whom Messrs. Ralph S. Spritzer, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Solicitor, and Abraham R. Spalter, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission, were on the brief, for respondent. Mr. John C. Mason, Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission at the time the record was filed, also entered an appearance for respondent.
Mr. David R. Kaplan, Detroit, Mich., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Michigan, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. J. Parker Connor, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor County of Wayne, Michigan.
Mr. William R. Connole, Washington, D. C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for intervenor Michigan Public Service Commission. Mr. Jerome Maslowski, Lansing, Mich., was on the brief for intervenor Michigan Public Service Commission.
Mr. Charles V. Shannon, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for intervenor Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.
Before BAZELON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company seeks to review two orders of the Federal Power Commission disallowing rate increases filed by it, and requiring it, for the periods in question, to file newly computed lower rate schedules — on the basis of which refunds to customers are to be made. The total amount of the increases, collected subject to refund, is over $40,000,000.
The earlier of the two rate proceedings before...
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.
