MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Exxon Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, and Marathon Oil Company, Plaintiffs,
v.
The DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, and James B. Edwards, Secretary of Energy, Defendants.
United States District Court, N. D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
September 21, 1982.
September 21, 1982.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, Washington, D. C., Charles S. Lindberg, Francis A. Rowen, Jr., New York City, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse, N. Y., for plaintiff Mobil Oil Corp.; Andrew J. Kilcarr, Washington, D. C., Thomas R. Trowbridge, III, New York City, John M. Freyer, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.
Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D. C., MacKenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y., for plaintiffs Exxon Corp. and Gulf Oil Corp.; Donald B. Craven, Jay L. Carlson, James P. Tuite, Nancy G. Miller, Washington, D. C., Jay W. Wason, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.
Barbara Finney, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff Exxon Corp.
Robert F. Ochs, J. Ronald Sandberg, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff Gulf Oil Corp.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, Washington, D. C., John A. Evans, Findlay, Ohio, Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Syracuse, N. Y., for plaintiff Marathon Oil Co.; Daniel Joseph, Warren E. Connelly, Washington, D. C., Donald L. Nicholas, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.
Regulatory Litigation Div., Dept. of Energy, Washington, D. C., Gustave J. DiBianco, Acting U. S. Atty., N. D. N. Y., Syracuse, N. Y., for defendants; David A. Engels, Dennis Moore, Floyd Robinson, Jo Ann Scott, Washington, D. C., Joseph A. Pavone, Asst. U. S. Atty., Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.
Batzell, Nunn & Bode, Washington, D. C., Sanford, Papworth & Trespasz, Syracuse, N. Y., amicus curiae for Independent Terminal Operators Ass'n; William H. Bode, Alford Lawrence Toombs, Washington, D. C., Samuel C. Sanford, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.
United States District Court, N. D. New York.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
MUNSON, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff oil refiners have instituted this action to obtain declaratory relief in connection with certain provisions of the Mandatory Petroleum Price Regulations, 10 C.F.R. Part 212, that pertained to motor gasoline. Specifically, the plaintiffs have challenged the procedural and substantive validity of a "three cent" retail price equalization rule which contained a "deemed recovery" component. Alternatively...
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.
