TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Interstate Electric, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission

Interstate Elec., Inc. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 164 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 24, 1947
Docket
No. 11590
Citations
164 F.2d 4851947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3255

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was brought by petitioners to review an order of respondent, Federal Power Commission, authorizing the merger and consolidation of facilities of Northwestern Electric Company with those of Pacific Power & Light Company, issued upon an application of those companies pursuant to § 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 824b. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review on the ground that petitioners are not parties aggrieved by the order, as is required by § 313(b) of the Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825Z(b).

The motion must be granted. While petitioners were permitted by orders of the Commission to intervene in the proceeding before that body, the order expressly stated in each instance that the admission of such intervenor “shall not be construed as recognition by the Commission that it might be aggrieved by any order or orders of the Commission entered in this proceeding.” In the course of the hearing before the Commission the petitioners made no request for any finding, and no finding was made, that any of them had any interest which might be affected by any order the 'Commission might make. In the application for rehearing filed with the Commission no objection was interposed to the failure to make such a finding of interest. The Commission’s findings include no facts from which it can be said, as a matter of law, that petitioners are aggrieved; and the omission of such find *486 ings of fact is not here urged to be error. Nor does the petition for review allege any facts in support of its barren recital that petitioners are aggrieved persons or parties.

Motion to dismiss granted. All motions submitted to this court by the petitioners are denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11973: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list