Pennzoil Producing Company v. Federal Power Commission
PENNZOIL PRODUCING COMPANY Et Al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent
Opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING (Opinion June 6, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 553 F.2d 485 )
Before CLARK, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In its petition for rehearing, the Federal Power Commission asserts that language in the opinion may erroneously indicate the prejudgment of an issue not before the Court, /. e., the effect of our decision in *817 Southland Royalty Co.
v. FPC, 543 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1976) on a state court termination of a lease, particularly one not limited by a fixed-term.
In order to pull from the opinion any indication as to how Southland might apply to the facts of this case, we delete from our opinion the last two sentences found at the end of the final paragraph, which read as follows:
It may well be that the “present or future public convenience or necessity” will suggest the propriety of abandoning a fraction of the gas in Williams’ property, rather than lose the entire amount from the interstate market. This decision is for the Commission.
We agree with the Commission that the statement was premature, if construed to be decisional, and unnecessary with respect to our decision.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.