Legal Opinion
Federal Power Commission v. Texaco Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 15, 1964No. 386PublishedCited by 213 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Douglas
The Federal Power Commission in its regulation of independent producers1 of natural gas has required them *167to file their contracts as rate schedules. This was done by regulations which evolved as a result of a series of rule-making proceedings.2 The pertinent regulations presently provide that only certain pricing provisions in the contracts of independent producers are “permissible,” 3 any other being “inoperative and of no effect at law.”4 The regulations go on to say that any contract executed on or after April 2, 1962, containing price-changing provisions other than the “permissible” ones,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. LangdeauSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by213 opinions
- Heckler v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Clifton Sykes, Sr. v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security Faith S. Hochberg, United States Attorney, District of New Jersey the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
208 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.