K. O. Sibley v. Rural Electrification Administration

419 F.2d 384
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 18, 1969
Docket27772
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 419 F.2d 384 (K. O. Sibley v. Rural Electrification Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
K. O. Sibley v. Rural Electrification Administration, 419 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is the third attempt to enjoin the consummation of a Rural Electrification Administration loan to the Louisiana Electric Cooperative. See Rural Electrification Administration v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., 354 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966), certiorari denied 385 U.S. 815, 87 S.Ct. 34, 17 L.Ed.2d 54.

Despite this Court’s previous explicit holding that private power companies themselves cannot enjoin as competitors the granting of a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration, appellants here seek to bar the loan as individual members of Louisiana Electric Cooperative, Inc., which is itself the beneficiary of the subject loan.

The effect of our holding in Rural Electrification Administration v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., supra, cannot be so easily circumvented. There *385 the Court specifically held that apart from the plaintiff’s lack of standing, the Courts are without jurisdiction to review the Agency’s loan-making authority. The holding has been reiterated in Alabama Power Co. v. Alabama Electric Co-operative, Inc., 394 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968), certiorari denied 393 U.S. 1000, 89 S.Ct. 488, 21 L.Ed.2d 465. 1

The district court’s order of dismissal is accordingly

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526 [No. 27439, Oct. 7, 1969].

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mobil Oil Corporation v. Tennessee Valley Authority
387 F. Supp. 498 (N.D. Alabama, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 F.2d 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-o-sibley-v-rural-electrification-administration-ca5-1969.