U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1965

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, County of Wayne, Michigan, Michigan Public Service Commission, Intervenors

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 22, 1965 · Bazelon, Fahy, Per Curiam, Washington

348 F.2d 340; 23 Oil & Gas Rep. 302; 121 U.S. App. D.C. 111; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5169 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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 inter-venor, County of Wayne, Michigan., Mr. Jerome Maslowski, Lansing, was on the brief for intervenor, Michigan Public Service Commission.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Arnold v. United States (D.C. 1986)
Dobson v. United States (D.C. 1981)
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Power Commission (8th Cir. 1966)
Ernest L. Stith v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.