Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Grynberg v. Transwestern Pipeline, et al
as 15-8063
Plaintiff - Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. JACK J. GRYNBERG
Defendant - Appellee:
TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, ENRON CORPORATION, BLACK MARLIN PIPELINE CO. and others
Defendant:
NORTHERN BORDER PIPELINE CO. and NORTHERN NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION COMPANY
In re: Natural Gas
as 15-8054
:
In re: NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES QUI TAM LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. JACK J. GRYNBERG
Defendant - Appellee:
PACIFIC INTERSTATE OFFSHORE COMPANY, a California corporation, PACIFIC OFFSHORE PIPELINE COMPANY, a California corporation, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California corporation and others
Defendant:
ORYX ENERGY COMPANY, PACIFIC GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, n/k/a Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, NORTHERN BORDER PIPELINE CO. and others
Town of Buckeye, Arizona v. FERC
as 08-1126
Petitioner:
Town of Buckeye, Arizona, Stardust-Tartesso W-12, Inc. and WVSV Holdings, L.L.C.
Respondent:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Intervenor For Respondent:
Arizona Public Service Company and Transwestern Pipeline Company
Movant-Intervenor For Respondent:
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District
Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC v. Paragon ECS Holdings, LLC
as 4:2008mc00069
Petitioner:
Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC
Respondent:
Paragon ECS Holdings, LLC
In re: Natural Gas
as 08-8004
:
In re: NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES QUI TAM LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JACK J. GRYNBERG, ex rel. United States
Defendant - Appellee:
PACIFIC INTERSTATE OFFSHORE COMPANY, a California corporation, PACIFIC OFFSHORE PIPELINE COMPANY, a California corporation, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California corporation and others
Defendant:
ORYX ENERGY COMPANY
In re: Natural Gas
as 06-8099
:
In re: NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES QUI TAM LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JACK J. GRYNBERG, ex rel. United States
Defendant - Appellee:
PACIFIC INTERSTATE OFFSHORE COMPANY, a California corporation, PACIFIC OFFSHORE PIPELINE COMPANY, a California corporation, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California corporation and others
Defendant:
ORYX ENERGY COMPANY
Inter Nat Gas Assn v. FERC
as 98-1333
Petitioner:
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Respondent:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Intervenor:
Missouri Gas Energy, Division of Southern Union Company, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc. and others
Terminated Party:
Essex County Gas Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company and others
Intervenor For Petitioner:
Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership and others
:
Pub Util Cmsn CA v. FERC
as 97-1028
Petitioner:
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Respondent:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Intervenor:
Mojave Pipeline Company, Southern California Utility Power Pool, Imperial Irrigation District and others
Intervenor For Petitioner:
Southern California Gas Company, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Utility Reform Network and others
Texaco Inc, et al v. FERC
as 93-1515
Petitioner:
Texaco, Inc. and Texaco Gas Marketing Inc.
Respondent:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Terminated Party:
Pacific Gas Transmission Company and Meridian Oil Inc
Intervenor:
Southern California Utility Power Pool, Imperial Irrigation District, Transwestern Pipeline Company and others
Intervenor For Petitioner:
Mobil Natural Gas Inc., Petro-Canada Hydrocarbons, Inc., Union Pacific Fuels, Inc. and others
Un Pac Fuels Inc v. FERC
as 93-1463
Petitioner:
Union Pacific Fuels, Inc.
Respondent:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Terminated Party:
Meridian Oil Inc
Intervenor:
Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, Transwestern Pipeline Company, Amoco Energy Trading Corporation and others
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
