Consolidated Gas Utilities Corporation v. Thompson
District Court, W.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
On amended pleadings bringing down to date 1 the proration orders of the commission plaintiffs complain of, these causes went on January 6, 1936, to final hearing on their merits.
Though complainants’ attacks were leveled against both the statute, House Bill No. 266 (Acts of Texas 1935, c. 120, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.Texas, art. 6008), and the orders of the commission, the primary attack was, it was bound to be, on the orders; for none of the matters of which complaint is made are the result of the self-execution of any of the provisions of the statute. They arise on,…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Holden v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1935
- Spann v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 1921
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Cities Service Co. v. Federal Energy AdministrationTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1975
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. BynumCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1946
- Saulsbury Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.