Legal Opinion

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, and v. D. D. Harrington, and D. D. Harrington, and v. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, And

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided July 9, 1957No. 16206_1PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

Restitution was sought by Natural from Harrington 1 for the difference between the contract rate for the purchase of natural gas and the price paid in compliance with an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission which was later declared invalid by the United States Supreme Court. The district court found Natural entitled to restitution in the sum of $1,302,491.23. It deducted from the restitution claimed $321,279, being $237,000 paid by Panoma as increased royalties and $84,279 paid as increased gross production taxes, and allowed no interest prior to the date of the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  3. Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  4. United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Ward v. Board of Commr's of Love Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
  4. Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  5. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. AdamsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API