TEXACO, INC. v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

Nos. 6947, 7135, 7217, 6973, 7002, 7303, 7179.

317 F.2d 796 (1963)

TEXACO, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. SUN OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 20, 1963.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alfred C. DeCrane, Jr., Houston, Tex., and James J. Flood, Jr., Houston, Tex. (P. F. Schlicher, New York City, and P. R. Wimbish, Tulsa, Okl., on the briefs), for petitioner, Texaco, Inc., in Nos. 6947, 7135, and 7217.

William H. Emerson, Tulsa, Okl., and Carroll L. Gilliam, Washington, D. C. (J. P. Hammond, Tulsa, Okl., Thomas J. Files, Casper, Wyo., Harold H. Young, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., and William J. Grove, and Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D. C., of counsel, on the briefs), for petitioner, Pan American Petroleum Corporation, in Nos. 6973, 7002, and 7303.

John A. Ward, III, Philadelphia, Pa. Phillip D. Endom, New Orleans, La., Joiner Cartwright, Herf M. Weinert, Charles F. Heidrick, Beaumont, Tex., J. Colbert Peurifoy, Dallas, Tex., Robert E. May, Louis Flax, John T. Ketcham and May, Shannon & Morley, Washington, D. C., and Martin A. Row, Dallas, Tex., of counsel, on the brief), for petitioner, Sun Oil Co., in No. 7179.

Peter H. Schiff, Attorney, Washington, D. C. (Richard A. Solomon, General Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Solicitor, and Milton J. Grossman and Arthur H. Fribourg, Attorneys, Federal Power Commission, on the briefs), for respondent, Federal Power Commission.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.


BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

These seven cases present another episode in the history of the regulation by the Federal Power Commission of independent producers of natural gas subject to its jurisdiction. Basically the issue is the right of the Commission to reject summarily and without a hearing a gas-purchase contract between a producer and a pipeline company on the ground that the contract contains indefinite price-changing clauses forbidden by Commission regulations...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases