1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 376 F.2d
  5. 376 F.2d 578 (1967)
 

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF TEXAS v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

No. 9289.

376 F.2d 578 (1967)

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF TEXAS, a Division of Chevron Oil Company, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, the Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Texaco Inc., Sunray DX Oil Company, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Lamar Hunt, Sohio Petroleum Company, and Sun Oil Company, Intervenors.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1967.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Justin R. Wolf, Washington, D. C., Claude W. Proctor, Houston, Tex., Charles A. Case, Jr., and Wolf & Case, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., Federal Power Commission, for respondent.

Kent H. Brown and Paul T. Murray, Albany, N. Y., for Public Service Commission of the State of New York, intervenor.

Barbara M. Suchow and Cullen & Dykman, Brooklyn, N. Y., for The Brooklyn Union Gas Co., intervenor.

William K. Tell, Jr., William R. Slye, and James D. Annett, Houston, Tex., for Texaco Inc., intervenor.

J. P. Greve and Homer E. McEwen, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for Sunray DX Oil Co., intervenor.

Martin N. Erck, Houston, Tex., for Humble Oil & Refining Co., intervenor.

Robert W. Henderson and Thomas G. Crouch, Dallas, Tex., for Lamar Hunt, intervenor.

Richard F. Remmers, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Sohio Petroleum Co., intervenor.

Phillip D. Endom, New Orleans, La., Robert E. May, Francis H. Caskin, and May, Shannon & Morley, Washington, D. C., for Sun Oil Co., intervenor.

Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This petition seeks review of Federal Power Commission Opinions Nos. 501 and 501-A which require the petitioner and other independent producers, all of whom were parties to the consolidated proceedings styled Amerada Petroleum Corporation, et al., Docket Nos. C162 etc., to make refunds of amounts collected under unconditioned temporary certificates in excess of the price established in Opinion No. 422.

Opinion No. 501 was entered while proceedings...

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