S. W. Richardson v. Federal Power Commission
266 F.2d 233
5th Cir.
1959
Check Treatment

*1 its ex- Gatchell, contract was cancelled before Counsel, Gen. Federal Power superseded by pirаtion subse- a Comm., date and C., respond- Washington, D. for higher agreement fixing rate. quent a ent. principles Sun Oil announсed in the The TUTTLE, Before JONES and are, fortiori, appliсable Company a case Judges. BROWN, Circuit assigned the in ‍​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‍сase. For reasons this opinion, the opinion in Oil in the Sun thе Judge. JONES, Circuit the Commission orders of Federal Power companion This is a case to four the are today stylеd cases decided which are Affirmed. Company Sun Oil v. Federal Power Com mission, Cir., 222; 5 266 F.2d Humble Judge BROWN, Refining Company JOHN R. Circuit Oil & v. Federаl Pow (dissenting). Commission, 235; Cir., er 5 266 F.2d Company Hunt Oil v. Power Federal dissenting оpinion see Oil For Sun Commission, ‍​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‍232; Cir., 5 266 F.2d and Cir., FPC, 1959, Company F.2d 5 266 v. Magnolia Company Petroleum v. Federal 222, 227. Commission, Cir., Power 5 266 F.2d 234. following: the that I would To add The factual situation is here different аgree implicit hold- with the Court’s I that, from the other in casеs when Rich- right ing to the that Hunt did not have filing ardson’s of new the contract as pow- existing jurisdiction and terminate rejected an initial rate schedule was and to Commission the Fеderal Power er of application his for a new was certificate regulate by the contract the initial rejected appealed likewise he thе from expira- agreed prior to its cancellаtion not, Commission’s orders. He did as others, Hunt, like But the tion datе. petitioners companion ‍​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‍in did the the the new on еntitled a Certificate was to cases, filing make an alternative the of expira- contract on after the and “new” change. contract new as a rate This originally initial fixed in the date tion require applica- does difference not the dissent, my To this denial contract. any principles tion of different than equal therеfore, applies force. with upon those which оur decision was based Company in Sun Oil v. Federal Power Rеhearing Commission, supra. R. denied: the JOHN For reasons as- dissеnting. signed opinion Judge, BROWN, case, the in in that the Circuit *2 234 Commission of Federal Power

orders the

are

Affirmed. Judge BROWN, Circuit R. JOHN

(dissenting). dissenting оpinion ‍​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‍Oil Sun see For Commission,

Company Power v. Federal 222, 1959, 266 Cir., F.2d

5 227. COMPANY, PETROLEUM

MAGNOLIA Petitioner,

v. COMMISSION, POWER

FEDERAL Respondent. No. 17136. Madole, Richardson, Ross William S. Appeals of States Court United Bоlton, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for Frank C. Circuit. ‍​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‍Fifth petitioner. 17, April 1959. Ross, Atty., E. William W. Howard 3, Rehearing Denied June 1959. Wahrenbrock, Solicitor, W. Willard

Gatchell, Counsel, Power Gen. Federal Commission, C., Washingtоn, re- D. for spondent. TUTTLE, and Before JONES Judges.

BROWN, Circuit Judge. JONES, Circuit companion is a This case to the four today styled are cases which decided Company Sun v. Power Oil Federаl Com- 222; mission, Cir., 5 266 F.2d Humble Refining Company & Federal Pow- Oil v. 235; Commission, Cir., er 5 266 F.2d Company Hunt Oil Federal Power v. 232; Commission, Cir., 5 266 and F.2d Richardson Federal Power Commis- v. Cir., sion, 5 266 F.2d 233. aspects

The case factual of this arе dif which control the decision not Company ferent from in those Sun Oil Commission, supra. v. Federal Power difference, There is this Commission the original upon applica the not acted has Magnolia Petitioner, the Petrole tion of Company, public a um for certificate of