New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Ernest Morial, Movants-Appellants v. United Gas Pipe Line Company

Fifth Circuit

New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Ernest Morial, Movants-Appellants v. United Gas Pipe Line Company

694 F.2d 421

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1983

Docket82-3194

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 694 F.2d 421 (New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Ernest Morial, Movants-Appellants v. United Gas Pipe Line Company) 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

New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Ernest Morial, Movants-Appellants v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, 694 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before GOLDBERG, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.

JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:

No member of this panel and no Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16), the suggestions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

The petition of defendant-appellee United Gas Pipe Line Company for rehearing is GRANTED for the limited purpose set out below.

The petition for rehearing brings to our attention the fact that by vote of the citizens of the City of New Orleans, the New Orleans City Council ceased to have the power to regulate the rates of public utilities within the City of New Orleans as of January 1, 1982. We, therefore, withdraw our holding that the “public officials and agencies have a right to intervene under F.R.Civ.P. 24(a)” as stated in the Conclusion of our original opinion, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 690 F.2d 1203, at 1215 (5th Cir.1982). We also withdraw that portion of the opinion designated II A, which considers intervention as a matter of right by the public officials.

We emphasize that we do not withdraw our holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the motion of the members of the City Council to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b). That portion of our opinion, designated II B, stands unchanged except for incidental references to the rate making power of the New Orleans City Council. We reaffirm the holding that the members of the City Council are proper parties to this proceeding by virtue of their motion for permissive intervention.

Treating suggestions for rehearing en banc as motions for rehearing by the panel, they are DENIED except as stated above.

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

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before GOLDBERG, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.

JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:

No member of this panel and no Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16), the suggestions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

The petition of defendant-appellee United Gas Pipe Line Company for rehearing is GRANTED for the limited purpose set out below.

The petition for rehearing brings to our attention the fact that by vote of the citizens of the City of New Orleans, the New Orleans City Council ceased to have the power to regulate the rates of public utilities within the City of New Orleans as of January 1, 1982. We, therefore, withdraw our holding that the “public officials and agencies have a right to intervene under F.R.Civ.P. 24(a)” as stated in the Conclusion of our original opinion, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 690 F.2d 1203, at 1215 (5th Cir.1982). We also withdraw that portion of the opinion designated II A, which considers intervention as a matter of right by the public officials.

We emphasize that we do not withdraw our holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the motion of the members of the City Council to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b). That portion of our opinion, designated II B, stands unchanged except for incidental references to the rate making power of the New Orleans City Council. We reaffirm the holding that the members of the City Council are proper parties to this proceeding by virtue of their motion for permissive intervention.

Treating suggestions for rehearing en banc as motions for rehearing by the panel, they are DENIED except as stated above.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 F.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-orleans-public-service-inc-ernest-morial-movants-appellants-v-ca5-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack