Legal Opinion · Dissent

McCombs v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided February 9, 1978No. 75-1829Published

1DissentHolloway, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. While the equities favor the McCombs Group, duPont and National, usual contract rules and equitable considerations do not control in this proceeding under the Natural Gas Act, in my opinion. Instead, there are mandatory statutory requirements on abandonment of service which were imposed to protect the public interests recognized by the Act, Sunray Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U.S. 137, 143, 80 S.Ct. 1392, 4 L.Ed.2d 1623, and these provisions convince me that we should affirm the basic holding of the Commission in this case.1

The majority opinion reasons (p. 1380) that: there was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. Mitchell Energy Corporation v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  4. Phillips Petroleum Company v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
  5. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973

1 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