Department of Energy v. Hunt
Decision Date | 10 August 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 5-101,5-102.,5-101 |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary of Energy, Defendants-Appellants, v. Ray L. HUNT, Independent Executor of the Estate of H.L. Hunt, Plaintiff-Appellee, The States of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, Puerto Rico, the Territory of Guam and the Virgin Islands, Intervenors-Appellants, Cities Service Company, Intervenor-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Before BECKER, DAUGHERTY and THORNBERRY, Judges.
INTERLOCUTORY FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDERS DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTIONS TO REMAND AND DIRECTING FILING OF RECORD ON APPEAL AND BRIEFS OF APPELLANTS AND INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS
The defendants-appellants, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), in No. 5-102, and the intervenors-appellants, the States of Arkansas, et alii (States) in No. 5-101, filed separate appeals to this Court from a judgment and orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division in a civil action designated by appellants District Court No. CA-3-78-1487-W. ( ) These two separate appeals, numbered 5-101 and 5-102 on the docket of this Court are considered jointly.
The Notice of Appeal of the States in No. 5-101, filed in this Court on October 14, 1983 (with caption and signatures omitted) is as follows:
The Notice of Appeal of the DOE and Secretary in No. 5-102, filed in this Court on October 14, 1983 (with caption and signatures omitted) is as follows:
In No. 5-101 the States as appellants filed a statement required by Rule 15(c) of this Court, to accompany their Notice of Appeal which (omitting caption, introductory paragraphs, signatures and list of counsel) was as follows:
In No. 5-102 the DOE and Secretary as appellants filed a statement, required by Rule 15(c) of this Court to accompany their Notice of Appeal, which (omitting caption, introductory paragraphs, signatures and lists of counsel) was as follows:
The appellants by unopposed motions, secured successive extensions of time for filing briefs and the record on appeal. The last extension of time to February 17, 1984 for filing the record on appeal and briefs of appellants was granted by the Clerk of this Court on the unopposed Joint Motion of All Parties for Extension of Time. This joint motion for extension of time stated:
Plaintiff and defendants as well as the intervenors Cities Service Company and the States have reached settlements which will avoid the necessity of an appeal, but the additional time is required to permit the parties to finalize the language of the settlement agreements. (Words in brackets added.)
On February 15, 1984 a "Joint Motion to Remand" was filed in No. 5-102 which (caption and signatures omitted) was as follows:...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Exxon Corp.
...and that any refund may be passed through to customers. This Interim Report is quoted verbatim in part in Department of Energy v. Hunt, (TECA 1984) 734 F.2d 816 at 824-825. The memorandum and order of the District Court of Kansas retaining ultimate jurisdiction and referring the task of fin......
-
Department of Energy v. Hunt
...omitted.) 2 An unrelated earlier interlocutory unanimous opinion of this Court in these consolidated appeals is reported in 734 F.2d 816 (TECA 1984). 3 The image of this Court (TECA), described by Ervin N. Griswold, former Dean of Harvard Law School and former Solicitor General of the Unite......
-
Lunday-Thagard Co. v. US Dept. of Interior, 5-115.
...immunity issue must be addressed to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. Department of Energy v. Hunt, 734 F.2d 816, 826 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1984). As the Supreme Court has time and again noted, "it is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its ......