AMERADA PETROLEUM CORPORATION, SUNRAY DX OIL COMPANY, TEXACO INC., HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, GULF OIL CORPORATION, UNION PRODUCING COMPANY, JAKE L. HAMON, GEORGE H. COATES, EDWIN L. COX AND LAMAR HUNT, PETITIONERS,
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Commission's failure to file the record prevented dismissal of the petition for review as to Sunray, and that venue deficiencies required dismissal for other petitioners.
Several natural-gas companies petitioned for review of a Commission order imposing conditions on their certificates. The Commission moved to dismiss f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate Of Public Convenience And Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Commission’s petition for rehearing urges that the record is not necessary for a determination of whether Sunray was aggrieved and emphasizes the potential complications in procedure.
We have again reviewed the situation and are convinced that in the case before us the question of aggrievement cannot be determined without the record. The parties are not in agreement on the facts. In the absence of such agreement we will not decide the issue on unauthenticated documents attached as appendices to motions and briefs or on unilateral statements made in briefs and oral arguments. This is not a case like Utah Power & Light Company v. Federal Power Commission, 10 Cir., 339 F. 2d 436, decided this day, in which the defect appeared on the face of the petition.
We are aware of the procedural problems mentioned by the Commission and we shall meet those problems when they arise. The procedural entanglements which postpone consideration on the merits of petitions to review Commission orders are regrettable and should have the careful attention of all parties in interest.
The Commission objects to our order which requires the filing of the entire record. We are now convinced that in the circumstances of this case the better procedure is to require a certificate of the materials comprising the record.
Except as stated herein the petition for rehearing is denied. The Commission, in accordance with our Rule 34(7),. shall certify a list of the materials comprising the record and file such certificate with the clerk within ten days-from the date of the entry of this order-
. 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Pub. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 555 F.2d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
-
Sunray DX OIL Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 370 F.2d 181 (10th Cir. 1966)
-
Sunray DX OIL Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 351 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1965)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Utah Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 339 F.2d 436 (10th Cir. 1964)