WESTERN NUCLEAR, INC., Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.; Uranium Resources, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
F. Clark HUFFMAN, as Chief Enrichment Services Branch, Enriching Operations Division, Department of Energy; Sherry E. Peske, as Acting Director of Marketing and Business Operations (Uranium Enrichment) of the Department of Energy; John R. Logenecker, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Uranium Enrichment of the Department of Energy; William R. Voigt, as Special Assistant for Strategic Policy Assessment to the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy of the Department of Energy; James W. Vaughn, as Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy of the Department of Energy; Earl Ghelde, as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Energy; Daniel Boggs, as Under Secretary of the Department of Energy; Donald P. Hodel, as Secretary of the Department of Energy; United States Department of Energy, Defendants-Appellants,
City of San Antonio, Acting By and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Duke Power Company; Gulf States Utilities Company; Houston Lighting & Power Company; Kansas City Power & Light Company; Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.; Kansas Gas & Electric Company; New York Power Authority; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Philadelphia Electric Company; Public Service Company of Colorado; Public Service Electric & Gas Company; Southern California Edison Company; Southern Company Services, Inc.; the Connecticut Light and Power Company; the Toledo Edison Company; Virginia Electric and Power Company; Western Massachusetts Electric Company; Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Union Electric Company; Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Arkansas Power & Light Company; Middle South Energy, Inc.; Middle South Services, Inc.; and Louisiana Power & Light, Amici Curiae,
National Taxpayers Union, Amicus Curiae,
States of Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, Amici Curiae.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 20, 1987.
July 20, 1987.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Marc Johnston, Atty., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Robert N. Miller, U.S. Atty., D. Colo., and Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, J. Michael Farrell, General Counsel, and I. Avrum Fingeret, Deputy Asst. General Counsel, Dept. of Energy, of counsel [No. 86-1942 only], with him, on the briefs), for defendants-appellants.
Peter J. Nickles of Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. (John H. Schafer [No. 85-2428 only], and Paul G. Gaston of Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., and Harley W. Shaver and Bruce Dewald of Shaver & Licht, Denver, Colo., with him, on the briefs), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Harry H. Voigt, Mindy A. Buren, and C. Christopher Sprague of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, Washington, D.C., on the briefs, for amici curiae City of San Antonio, et al.
B. Jeanine Hull of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Washington, D.C., and William A. Strauss and William T. Lane of Nat. Taxpayers Union, Washington, D.C., of counsel, on the brief, for amicus curiae Nat. Taxpayers Union.
A.G. McClintock, Wyoming Atty. Gen., Steven R. Shanahan, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul Bardacke, New Mexico Atty. Gen., Duane Woodard, Colorado Atty. Gen., Brian McKay, Nevada Atty. Gen., and David L. Wilkinson, Utah Atty. Gen., on the brief, for amici curiae States of Wyo., N.M., Colo., Nev. and Utah.
Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, three uranium mining and milling companies, filed a five-count complaint challenging various Department of Energy (DOE) policies. Shortly after filing the complaint, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on count two, which challenged the DOE's use of the recently adopted uranium enrichment services contract (UESC). The district court granted plaintiffs' motion, and the DOE appealed. While...
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.
