S. W. Richardson v. Federal Power Commission

266 F.2d 233, 10 Oil & Gas Rep. 623, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4025
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 17, 1959·No. 17049·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinions

JONES, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to the four cases decided today which are styled Sun Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 222; Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 235; Hunt Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 232; and Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 234.

The factual situation is here different from the other cases in that, when Richardson’s filing of the new contract as an initial rate schedule was rejected and his application for a new certificate was likewise rejected he appealed from the Commission’s orders. He did not, as did the petitioners in the companion cases, make an alternative filing of the new contract as a rate change. This difference does not require the application of any different principles than those upon which our decision was based in Sun Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, supra. For the reasons assigned in the opinion in that case, the [234] orders of the Federal Power Commission are

Affirmed.

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

S. W. Richardson v. Federal Power Commission, 266 F.2d 233, 10 Oil & Gas Rep. 623, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4025 (5th Cir. 1959).

266 F.2d 233 (S. W. Richardson v. Federal Power Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sun Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission
266 F.2d 222 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)
Hunt Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission
266 F.2d 232 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)
S. W. Richardson v. Federal Power Commission
266 F.2d 233 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)