Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, County of Wayne, Michigan, Michigan Public Service Commission, Intervenors
Appeal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Case No. 19016

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (4) Tab Overlap Cited By (22) Right End

348 F.2d 340

121 U.S.App.D.C. 111

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO., Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, County of Wayne,
Michigan, Michigan Public Service Commission, Intervenors.

No. 19016.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1965.
Decided June 22, 1965.

On petition to review orders of the Federal Power Commission.

Mr. Harry S. Littman, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Melvin Richter, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Peter H. Schiff, Atty., Federal Power Commission, with whom Messrs. Richard A. Solomon, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., and Abraham R. Spalter, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.

Mr. David R. Kaplan, Detroit, Mich., with whom Mr. Berl I. Bernhard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for intervenor, County of Wayne, Michigan.

Mr. Jerome Maslowski, Lansing, was on the brief for intervenor, Michigan Public Service Commission.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The prior history in this court of this case is found in City of Detroit, Michigan v. Federal Power Comm'n, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 260, 230 F.2d 810, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 829, 77 S.Ct. 34, 1 L.Ed.2d 48, and in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 94, 305 F.2d 763, cert. denied, 372 U.S. 916, 83 S.Ct. 719, 9 L.Ed.2d 722. The present petition is for review of orders of the Commission following our remand to the Commission by our judgment in the case last cited. We affirm the present orders as within the Commission's authority validly exercised as a result of the proceedings upon the remand.

2

Affirmed.

Statistics

This case has been viewed 41 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?