Mun. Distributors Grp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, United Distrib. Companies, Intervenors. Pub. Serv. Comm'n for the State of New York v. Fed. Power Comm'n, Mobil Oil Corp., Intervenors. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, United Distrib. Companies, Intervenors, 459 F.2d 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Mun. Distributors Grp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, United Distrib. Companies, Intervenors. Pub. Serv. Comm'n for the State of New York v. Fed. Power Comm'n, Mobil Oil Corp., Intervenors. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, United Distrib. Companies, Intervenors, 459 F.2d 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Itt World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (ca2, 1980-05-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Itt World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (2×)
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Circuit has recognized that there is a significant interest in transferring a case to a court that has already ruled on an identical or related case, see Municipal Distributors Group, supra, 459 F.2d at 1368; Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 354 F.2d 507, 511 (D.C.Cir. 1965); Public Service Commission v. FPC, 472 F.2d 1270 (D.C.Cir. 1972), even though that same Circuit has rejected the notion that a case should be transferred to a circuit that has regularly considered cases involving the same industry, or the same type of legal questions, see American Public Gas Association, supra, 555 F.2d at …
cited Cited "see" City of Gallup v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Intervenor. (Four Cases)
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Municipal Distributors Group v. FPC, 459 F.2d 1367 , 1368 (D.C.Cir. 1972).
cited Cited "see" American Public Gas Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See note 3, supra.
examined Cited "see" Abourezk v. Federal Power Commission (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Municipal Distributors Group v. FPC, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345 , 459 F.2d 1367 , 1369 (1972).
examined Cited "see" James Abourezk v. Federal Power Commission, the California Co., Shell Oil Co., General Motors Corp., Interstate Naturalgas Assoc. Of America, Gulf Oil Corp., the Public Service Comm. Of the State of New York, Atlantic Richfield Co., Independent Petroleum Asso. Of America,skelly Oil Co.,phillips Petroleum Co., Columbia Gas Transmission Co., Natural Gas Pipeline co.of America, United Gas Pipe Line Co., Continental Oil Co., Cities Service Oilco., San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Amerada Hess Corp., Assoc. Gas Distributorsand Union Oilco. Of California, Intervenors. James Abourezk v. Federal Power Commission, Mobil Oil Corp., Shell Oil Co., General Motors Corp., Interstate Natural Gasassoc. Of America, Texaco, Inc., Gulf Oil Corp., Public Service Commission Ofthe State of New York, United Gas Pipe Line Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., Unionoil Co. Ofcalifornia, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Independent Petroleum Assoc. Ofamerica, Phillips Petroleum Corp., Skelly Oil Co., Columbia Gas Transmissionco., Exxon Corp., Natural Gas Pipeline Co., Cities Service Oil Co., Continentaloil Co., Uniteddistribution Companies, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Amerada Hess Corp.,northern Natural Gas Co., Associated Gas Distributors and Pacific Gas& Electric Co., Intervenors (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Municipal Distributors Group v. FPC, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345 , 459 F.2d 1367 , 1369 (1972). 9 In the instant case, the first petition was filed in the Fifth Circuit.
discussed Cited "see" Public Service Commission for New York v. Federal Power Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Municipal Distributors Group v. FPC, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 343 , 459 F.2d 1367 (1972) : “This court has recognized that sound doctrine resists ‘forum shopping’ in a ease of mere technical aggrievement, see [Insurance Workers] International Union et al. v. NLRB, 126 U.S. App.D.C. 11, 373 F.2d 671 (1967).” 459 F.2d at 1369 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Federal Power Commission (2×)
5th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Municipal Distributors Group v. FPC, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 343 , 459 F.2d 1367 (1972); Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 343 F.2d 905 (8th Cir. 1965); Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 337 F.2d 249 (10th Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Municipal Distributors Group
v.
Federal Power Commission, United Distribution Companies, Intervenors. Public Service Commission for the State of New York v. Federal Power Commission, Mobil Oil Corporation, Intervenors. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, United Distribution Companies, Intervenors
71-1724.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jan 11, 1972.
459 F.2d 1367
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

459 F.2d 1367

148 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 93 P.U.R.3d 104,
98 P.U.R.3d 104

MUNICIPAL DISTRIBUTORS GROUP, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent,
United Distribution Companies et al., Intervenors.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR the STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent,
Mobil Oil Corporation et al., Intervenors.
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent,
United Distribution Companies et al., Intervenors.

Nos. 71-1724, 71-1725, 71-1735.

United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1972.

Mr. J. Richard Tiano, First Asst. Sol., Federal Power Commission, was on the motion to transfer for respondent.

[*~1367]1

Messrs. Tom P. Hamill, Houston, Tex., and Carroll L. Gilliam, Washington, D. C., were on the response to the motion to transfer for petitioner in No. 71-1735 and intervenor Mobil Oil Corporation in Nos. 71-1724 & 71-1725. Mr. Philip R. Ehrenkranz, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for Mobil Oil.

2

Messrs. Tilford A. Jones and William A. Mogel, Washington, D. C., were on the reply of Intervenor United Distribution Companies opposing the response of Mobil Oil to the motion to transfer.

3

Messrs. Reuben Goldberg, Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., Washington, D. C., Jerome C. Muys, Washington, D. C., and George E. Morrow, Memphis, Tenn., were on the opposition to the motion to transfer for petitioner in No. 71-1724.

4

Messrs. Joseph J. Klovekorn, Albany, N. Y. and Michael H. Rosenbloom, Washington, D. C., were on the opposition to the motion to transfer for petitioner in No. 71-1725.

5

Messrs. Paul W. Hicks, Robert W. Henderson, Dallas, Tex., and Daniel F. Collins, Washington, D. C., were on the reply to the oppositions to the motion to transfer for intervenors Placid Oil Co. et al.

6

Before LEVENTHAL and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

7

PER CURIAM.

8

On consideration of the motion of the Federal Power Commission to transfer the above-entitled cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and of the responsive pleadings filed with respect thereto, it is

9

Ordered by the Court that the aforesaid motion to transfer is hereby granted, and these cases are hereby transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in accordance with the opinion of this Court attached hereto.

PER CURIAM:

[*~1368]10

We have given consideration to the Federal Power Commission's motion to transfer the above-entitled proceedings to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and the oppositions and responses filed thereto. We are by no means confident that the difference of two seconds in the stamped filing time of the petitions filed in this Circuit and in the 5th Circuit is sufficiently meaningful to establish the automatic application of the mandate of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2112(a), or whether a different disposition might be permissible.[*] However the matter need not be explored so far as the instant controversy is concerned since the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is "familiar with the background of the controversy through review of the same or related proceedings" by virtue of its consideration in Southern Louisiana Area Rate Cases v. FPC, 428 F.2d 407 (1970), and accordingly transfer to that circuit is in the public interest under the approach followed in Eastern Air Lines v. CAB, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 354 F.2d 507 (1965). The motion to transfer is granted.

11

We do not pass on the contention of petitioner Municipal Distributors Group, in opposition to the motion to transfer, that the petitions to review filed in the Fifth Circuit represent "blatant forum shopping" in a case involving hundreds of millions of dollars in rates for natural gas produced in Southern Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico, and that these petitions to review, filed by Placid Oil Company and its co-petitioners, various Hunt interests, reflect only a technical "aggrievement" and that any shortfall in the relief they requested of the Federal Power Commission is not significant enough to support their determining choice of forum. This court has recognized that sound doctrine resists "forum shopping" in a case of mere technical aggrievement, see International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, U.A.W.-A.F.L.-C.I.O. et al. v. NLRB, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 373 F.2d 671, 674 (1967). However, it is for the Fifth Circuit where the pertinent petition to review was filed, to study it and consider whether that doctrine is applicable.

[*~1369]12

So ordered.

*

See International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. National Labor Relations Board, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 343 F.2d 327 (1965)