Arizona Power Pooling Ass'n v. Morton
Citation: 6 ELR 20178
No. Nos. 74-1167 et al., 527 F.2d 721/(9th Cir., 12/17/1975) As modified
The court unanimously denies defendant's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. It goes on, however, to supplement and clarify its initial decision for plaintiffs, 5 ELR 20708, in this action brought by a group of consumer-owned electric utilities to enforce the preference clause in the 1939 federal reclamation law.
Counsel for Plaintiff
D. Emerson Duncan, II
Duncan, Allen & Mitchell
1775 K Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20006
Counsel for Defendants
William G. Smitherman, U.S. Attorney
5000 Federal Building
Phoenix AZ 85025
Other counsel are listed at 5 ELR 20708.
Before TUTTLE,* KOELSCH, and BROWNING, Circuit Judges:
Judges Tuttle, Koelsch and Browning duly considered defendants-appellers' Petition for Rehearing and concluded to supplement the opinion with the per curiam opinion attached hereto; and thereupon voted unanimously to deny the Petition for Rehearing. Judges Koelsch and Browning further voted, and Judge Tuttle recommended, against a rehearing in banc.
The full court having been so advised and no judge of the court in active service having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing in benc, the Petition for Rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for rehearing in banc is rejected.