1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 865 F.2d
  5. 865 F.2d 270 (1988)
 

GETTY OIL CO. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

No. 3-52.

865 F.2d 270 (1988)

GETTY OIL COMPANY v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al.

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.

Decided October 14, 1988.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Phillip P. Kalodner, Philadelphia, Pa., was on the brief for Appellants Utilities, Transporters and Manufacturers.

Andrew P. Miller, Dickstein, Shapiro and Morin, Washington, D.C., with whom Milton B. Whitfield and J. Bradley Ortins of the same firm, were on the brief for Appellee States Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, North Dakota, Rhode Island and West Virginia.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Hayes, Deputy Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., were on the brief for Appellee State of Ill.

Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Donald C. Arnold, Chief Counsel, Dept. of Justice, Salem, Or., were on the brief for Appellee State of Or.

LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen., and Eugene F. Waye, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., were on the brief for Appellee Commonwealth of Pa.

Bernard Nash, Edward G. Modell and Eileen P. Shannon, Nash, Railsback & Plesser, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for Appellee States Hawaii, Ill., Kan., Neb., Nev., N.C., Guam and the Virgin Islands.

James F. Flug and Paula Dinerstein, Lobel, Novins, Lamont & Flug, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for Appellee States Ala., Cal., Conn., Idaho, Ind., Md., Mich., Miss., Mont., Ohio, S.D., Vt., Wis. and Wyo.

John Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., and Yeoryios C. Apallas, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., were on the brief for Appellee State Cal.

Gilbert T. Renaut, Office of Judicial Litigation, Economic Regulatory Admin., U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C., with whom Theodore A. Miles, Don W. Crockett and Paul M. Geier of the same office, were on the brief for Appellee U.S. Dept. of Energy.

Before GRANT, PECK and METZNER, Judges.

GRANT, Judge.

Before this court is an appeal from a denial of intervention in Getty Oil Company v. United States Department of Energy by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appellants have challenged the court's determination that the requirements for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have not been met. For the following reasons we affirm the district court's judgment.

I.

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