CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORP.

v.

EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL.; CALIFORNIA V. EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL.; AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. V. EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. EL Paso Natural GAS Co., 386 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1967)
  …estiture are not [*132] before us. The threshold question does indeed involve another matter. Appellants were denied intervention by the District Court and came, here by way of appeal, 32 Stat. 823, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We noted .probable jurisdiction. 382 U. S. 970. I. The initial question concerning intervention turns on a construction of Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entitled “Intervention of Right.” At the time the District Court ruled on the motions that Rule provided in relevant pa…
• The EL Paso Co. v. The United States, 694 F.2d 703 (Fed. Cir. 1982)
  …advances have ever been repaid. In the proceedings that led to entry of the first decree, several interested parties were denied intervention by the district court. They appealed the adverse ruling and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. 382 U.S. 970, 86 S.Ct. 528, 15 L.Ed.2d 463 (1966). The Court reversed, ordering the district court to permit each of the parties to intervene as a matter of right. More importantly, and despite the Justice Department’s avowed agreement with the terms of the firs…