FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
v.
SUNRAY DX OIL CO. ET AL.; UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT CO. V. SUNRAY DX OIL CO. ET AL.; BROOKLYN UNION GAS CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL.; FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF TEXAS, A DIVISION OF CHEVRON OIL CO., ET AL.; UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT CO. V. SUNRAY DX OIL CO. C. A. 10TH CIR.; SHELL OIL CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK; SKELLY OIL CO. ET AL. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK ET AL.; FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK ET AL.; AND SUPERIOR OIL CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL.
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.
This court granted certiorari, consolidated cases, and allotted time for oral argument.
Multiple parties filed petitions for certiorari in cases originating from various circuit courts. The cases were consolidated for argument before the …
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 Oral Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of nine hours is allotted for oral argument.
Solicitor General Marshall, Ralph S. Spritzer, Richard A. Posner, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock and Cyril S. Wofsy for petitioner in No. 60.
William T. Coleman, Jr., Robert W. Maris, Richardson Dilworth and Harold E. Kohn for petitioner in Nos. 61 and 97.
Edwin F. Russell, Harry G. Hill, Jr., and Barbara M. Suchow for Brooklyn Union Gas Co.; Bertram D. Moll and Morton L. Simons for Long Island Lighting Co.; Samuel Graff Miller for Philadelphia Electric Co., and Kent H. Brown for Public Service Commission of New York, petitioners in No. 62.
Solicitor General Marshall and Mr. Solomon for petitioner in No. 80.
Oliver L. Stone and Thomas G. Johnson for petitioner in No. 111.
Sherman S. Poland for Skelly Oil Co.; Martin N. Erck for Humble Oil & Refining Co., and Bernard A. Foster, Jr., for Dougherty et al., petitioners in No. 143.
Solicitor General Marshall, Mr. Solomon, Peter H. Schiff and Joel Yohalem for petitioner in No. 144.
Herbert W. Varner and Murray Christian for petitioner in No. 231.
Homer E. McEwen, Jr., for Sunray DX Oil Co.; Mr. Erck for Humble Oil & Refining Co.; Vernon W. Woods for Union Producing Co.; Richard F. Remmers for Sohio Petroleum Co.; William K. Tell, Jr., and James D. An-nett for Texaco Inc.; Warren M. Sparks for Gulf Oil Corp.; Kiel Boone for Cox; Phillip D. Endom, Robert E. May and Francis H. Caskin for Sun Oil Co., and Thomas G. Crouch, Robert W. Henderson and Donald K. Young for Hunt, respondents in Nos. 60, 61 and 62. Solicitor General Marshall and Mr. Solomon for the Federal Power Commission, respondent in Nos. 61 and 62. Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions. Francis R. Kirkham and Justin R. Wolf for respondent Standard Oil Co. of Texas in No. 80. Mr. McEwen for Sunray DX Oil Co.; Messrs. Tell and Arnett for Texaco Inc.; Messrs. Endom, May and Gaskin for Sun Oil Co.; Mr. Remmers for Sohio Petroleum Co.; Mr. Erck for Humble Oil & Refining Co.; Robert V. Smith for Patchin-Wilmoth Industries, Inc.; J. Evans Attwell and W. H. Drushel, Jr., for Clark Fuel Producing Co.; Mr. Boone for Cox; Messrs. Crouch, Henderson and Young for Hunt; and Mr. Poland for Coates, respondents in Nos. 80 and 97.
Messrs. Simons, Brown and Moll for respondents in Nos. Ill, 143 and 144.
Solicitor General Marshall, Messrs. Solomon, Schiff and Yohalem for the Federal Power Commission; Messrs. Brown and Simons for Public Service Commission of New York; and Mr. Moll for Long Island Lighting Co., respondents in No. 231.
Reported below: Nos. 60, 61 and 62, 370 F. 2d 181; Nos. 80 and 97, 376 F. 2d 578; Nos. 111, 143, 144 and 231, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 26, 373 F. 2d 816.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1968)…Wolf River Treaty; but it held, contrary to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that those rights were not abrogated by the Termination Act of 1954. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in order to resolve that conflict between the two courts. 389 U. S. 811. On oral argument both petitioner and respondent urged that the judgment of the Court of Claims be affirmed. The State of Wisconsin appeared as amicus curiae and argued that that judgment be reversed. [*408] In 1953 Congress by concurrent resolution…
-
Fed. Power Comm'n v. Sunray DX OIL Co., 391 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1968)…eserving to pipeline proceedings the question, raised by seaboard interests, of whether there was a public need for the gas which was to be sold. 126 U. S. App. D. C. 26, 373 F. 2d 816. We granted certiorari and consolidated the cases for argument, 389 U. S. 811, to consider the following matters: (1) Did the Commission err in determining the in-line prices here in issue? (2) May the Commission order refunds of amounts collected under unconditioned temporary certificates in excess of the eventually determin…
-
Hopkins v. Cohen, 390 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1968)…Seventh Circuit affirmed. 374 P. 2d 726. Because its ruling as to attorney fees conflicted with decisions of the Fourth Circuit (see Redden v. Celebrezze, 361 F. 2d 815; Lambert v. Celebrezze, 361 F. 2d 677), we granted the petition for certiorari. 389 U. S. 811. The disabled claimant qualifies under § 223 of the Act (42 U. S. C. § 423 (1964 ed., Supp. II)) and figures his primary benefits under § 215 of the Act (42 U. S. C. §415 (1964 ed., Supp. II)). The claimants who receive benefits as relatives of th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunray DX OIL Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 370 F.2d 181 (10th Cir. 1966)
- Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF the State OF NEW York v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 373 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
- Standard OIL Co. OF Tex. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 376 F.2d 578 (10th Cir. 1967)