Case Name: H. F. SEARS and A. E. Herrmann Corporation, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-02-20
Citations: 263 F.2d 626
Docket Number: No. 17009
Parties: H. F. SEARS and A. E. Herrmann Corporation, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 263
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
H. F. SEARS and A. E. Herrmann Corporation, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 17009.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1959.
D. H. Culton, Culton, Morgan, Britain & White, R. W. Richards, Amarillo, Tex., for petitioners.
W. Russell Gorman, Atty., Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., Willard W. Gatchell, Gen. Counsel, Leo E. Forquer, Atty., F. P. C., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
TUTTLE, Circuit Judge.
This appeal presents substantially the same questions as were before the Court for disposition in Forest Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 622.
The only substantial difference between the eases is that the petitioners here did not make a motion before the Commission before the final order, as was done in Forest Oil Corporation, for further opportunity to produce the financial type of evidence which was indicated by the Commission's order in Bel Oil v. F. P. C., No. 300, would be required. On oral argument before this Court, counsel for petitioner requested that this opportunity be given.
As we said in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 255 F.2d 556, 557:
"We think justice requires that the matter be referred back to the Commission for the taking of additional testimony, especially in light of the Pan American opinion [Opinion 310]."
The petition is granted to the extent that the Commission is directed to reopen these proceedings to afford petitioner reasonable opportunity to adduce such evidence as they may be advised is relevant to the inquiry whether the proposed rate is just and reasonable. In all other respects the petition is denied.