Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlitigationwill
willpartnership

Related Cases

Hodge v. URFA-Sexton, LP, 295 Ga. 136, 758 S.E.2d 314, 14 FCDR 1250
View Case »
United States v. Wheat, 988 F.3d 299
View Case »
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398, 80 USLW 4244, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3299, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3726, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203
View Case »
Belli v. Shaw, 98 Wash.2d 569, 657 P.2d 315
View Case »
Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Keesee, 973 S.W.2d 842
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. F.E.R.C., 962 F.2d 45, 295 U.S.App.D.C. 236

Facts

K N Energy, a pipeline company, gathers gas in Montana and delivers it to Williston Basin Pipeline Company under a contract that K N and the producers claim entitles them to firm service. FERC issued orders stating that the service was interruptible, which K N and other petitioners challenged. However, a subsequent FERC order found that K N's service was not firm and superseded the earlier orders, leading to the mootness of the case.

K N Energy, a pipeline company and a petitioner here, gathers gas in Montana from three gas producers, Freeport–McMoRan, American Production Partnership, and Ninian Oil, the other petitioners. K N delivers the gas in Montana to the pipelines of Williston Basin Pipeline Company, which redelivers an equivalent volume of gas in Wyoming to K N for transport to end users.

Issue

Whether the case was moot due to the issuance of a subsequent FERC order that superseded the challenged orders.

Whether the case was moot due to the issuance of a subsequent FERC order that superseded the challenged orders.

Rule

A case is considered moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.

A case is considered moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.

Analysis

The court determined that the challenged orders were rendered moot by a subsequent FERC order that clarified the nature of K N's service. Since the petitioners had not demonstrated any actual injury that could be remedied by the court, the case did not present a live controversy. The court also noted that FERC's counsel acknowledged the futility of continuing the litigation.

The court determined that the challenged orders were rendered moot by a subsequent FERC order that clarified the nature of K N's service. Since the petitioners had not demonstrated any actual injury that could be remedied by the court, the case did not present a live controversy.

Conclusion

The court vacated the challenged orders, concluding that the case was moot and that the petitioners had not suffered any redressable injury.

The court vacated the challenged orders, concluding that the case was moot and that the petitioners had not suffered any redressable injury.

Who won?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) prevailed in the case as the court vacated the challenged orders, aligning with FERC's position that the orders were moot.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) prevailed in the case as the court vacated the challenged orders, aligning with FERC's position that the orders were moot.

You must be