Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
732 F.2d 452 (1984)


Facts

United Gas Pipe Line Co. (United) (defendant) was a fuel supplier to New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI) (plaintiff), a public utility for the City of New Orleans. After a long-term contract between United and NOPSI expired, the parties entered into an interim agreement that gave United a unilateral right to change the price of fuel on an annual basis. NOPSI could reject a price change only by rejecting the fuel. In 1981, United notified NOPSI that it intended to increase the price of fuel by a considerable amount. NOPSI executed a letter agreement acceding to the new rate with a proviso that it was reserving its rights in the matter. NOPSI then sued United in a federal district court, alleging that it had been compelled to sign the agreement under duress and that United’s redetermination of fuel prices was invalid under Louisiana law. The Mayor of New Orleans, the City of New Orleans, and certain other individuals and entities, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all of NOPSI’s customers, sought to intervene in the lawsuit. In their petition to intervene, they adopted the allegations of NOPSI and did not otherwise state any independent, substantive bases for relief. The district court denied intervention, both as a matter of right and as permitted in the court’s discretion. On appeal, a panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision as to intervention of right but held that the court abused its discretion by not allowing permissive intervention by city officials. The Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear the appeal en banc.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Garwood, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Williams, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.