Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Leonard Refineries, Inc.

Sixth Circuit

Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Leonard Refineries, Inc.

200 F.2d 699

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 1952

Docket11497_1

StatusPublished

This text of 200 F.2d 699 (Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Leonard Refineries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Leonard Refineries, Inc., 200 F.2d 699 (6th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation from a judgment for the appellee oil company, defendant below, in an action brought for the return of an alleged subsidy payment to appellee in the amount of $9,062 and tried in the District Court on stipulated facts, has been heard and considered here on the record and on the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys ;

And it appearing from the carefully considered, well reasoned opinion of the District Judge, 96 F.Supp. 813, that the rights of the appellee under the terms of its contract with the predecessor of appellant, as expressed in the pertinent regulation, were measured by the rate fixed in a published tariff rather than in an unpublished one and that this is the true and correct criterion to he applied to the factual situation disclosed in the stipulation ;

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation from a judgment for the appellee oil company, defendant below, in an action brought for the return of an alleged subsidy payment to appellee in the amount of $9,062 and tried in the District Court on stipulated facts, has been heard and considered here on the record and on the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys ;

And it appearing from the carefully considered, well reasoned opinion of the District Judge, 96 F.Supp. 813, that the rights of the appellee under the terms of its contract with the predecessor of appellant, as expressed in the pertinent regulation, were measured by the rate fixed in a published tariff rather than in an unpublished one and that this is the true and correct criterion to he applied to the factual situation disclosed in the stipulation ;

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F.2d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reconstruction-finance-corporation-v-leonard-refineries-inc-ca6-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack