Legal Opinion
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. Federal Power Commission, Dorchester Corporation, Intervenor
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 10, 1958No. 11862PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.
The dispositive question here is, what was the lawful contract rate on June 7, 1954 for gas sold by intervenor, Dor-chester Corporation to petitioner?
Dorchester is an independent producer of natural gas in Oklahoma. It is the immediate successor of Panoma Corporation which had originally succeeded the partnership of Harrington and Marsh as such producer. 1 Natural, the petitioner, on December 1, 1946, contracted with that partnership for the purchase of natural gas from the Guy-mon-Hugoton field in Oklahoma. The contract ran expressly until January 1, 1965 and at…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- 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
- Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm'n of Kan.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Cities Service Gas Company, a Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, Magnolia Petroleum Company, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1958
- Boston Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
- Borough of Lansdale, Pennsylvania v. Federal Power Commission, Philadelphia Electric Company, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, Illinois Power Company, Laclede Gas Company, Midsouth Gas Company, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
- Public Service Commission of the State of New York, v Federal Power Commission, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation Sun Oil Company, v Federal Power Commission, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation and Philadelphia Gas Works Division of Ugi Corporation, Intervenors. General Crude Oil Company, v Federal Power Commission, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation and Philadelphia Gas Works Division of Ugi Corporation, Intervenors. M.H. Marr, v Federal Power Commission, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation and Philadelphia Gas Works Division of Ugi Corporation, Intervenors. Continental Oil Company, v Federal Power Commission, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation and Philadelphia Gas Works Division of Ugi Corporation, Intervenors. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, v Federal Power Commission, Sun Oil Company, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.