Legal Opinion
Kickapoo Oil Co. v. Murphy Oil Corp.
Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 1985No. 7-14PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THORNBERRY, Judge.
Kickapoo appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing its overcharge claim against Murphy. It complains that the district court erred by granting Murphy’s motion in limine to exclude Kickapoo’s analysis of alleged overcharges. Specifically, Kickapoo argues that the district court erred in holding that the Equal Application/Deemed Recovery Rule, 10 C.F.R. § 212.83(h) (1981) required Murphy’s deemed recoveries to be calculated on a pricing period basis. Finding no error, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Regulatory
In November 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. LarionoffSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Standard Oil Co. v. Department of EnergyTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1978
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Michael Revak v. National Mines Corporation and Old Republic Companies, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Party-In-InterestCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Koch Refining Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1989
- Martin Oil Service, Inc. v. Koch Refining Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986
- Michael Revak v. National Mines Corporation and Old Republic Companies, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Party-In-InterestCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Midcontinent Communications v. MCI Communications Services, Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 2018