Court Opinion

ID: 9422954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:05:15.629594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:40.545496
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Goldberg,
with whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,
concurring.
I agree with the Court that this case is clearly controlled by our recent decision in California v. Lo-Vaca Gathering Co., ante, p. 366, and thus join the opinion and judgment of the Court. I concur, however, in order to make explicit my understanding'of the rationale of the Court’s decision in this case.
At the time of this action, respondents, as in Lo-Vaca, attributed to themselves a greater percentage of so-called nonjurisdictional gas than their proportionate share of *691the gas in the commingled stream.* Thus, here, as in Lo-Vnca, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether “in spite of original commingling there might be a separate so-called nonjurisdictional transaction of a precise amount of gas . . . 379 U. S., at 370.

Some years prior to this action'Amerada-Signal claimed no more than its proportionate share, and under those circumstances the FPC disclaimed jurisdiction. See North Dakota v. FPC, 247 F. 2d 173 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1967). The fact that the amount claimed by respondents at the time of this action exceeds Amerada-Signal’s proportionate share is due to the addition of new sources of supply to the commingled stream. This change, standing alone, mates inapplicable any doetrine of collateral estoppel based on the FPC’s disclaimer or the Court of Appeal’s affirmance in North Dakota v. FPC, supra.