Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Exxon Corp.

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals

Decided July 1, 1985No. Nos. DC-91 to DC-100Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilliam H. Becker, Judge

CONCURRENCE IN PART

First, I wish to concur in the affirmance of the excellent opinion and judgment of the able District Judge on those difficult and complex issues, finding and concluding that Exxon Corporation was liable for overcharges and interest for violation of the applicable statutes and regulations fixing the maximum prices for the crude oil in question. On these issues, which include nearly all the major issues presented in these appeals, the District Judge found the facts and applied the applicable law in an unusually clear, discriminating and exemplary manner. See United States v.…

2Cases cited69 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  4. Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970

64 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