K. O. SIBLEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION ET AL., DEFENDANTSAPPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that private power companies, even as members of the borrowing cooperative, cannot enjoin the Rural Electrification Administration's loan-making authority due to lack of jurisdiction.
Appellants, individual members of Louisiana Electric Cooperative, Inc., sought to enjoin a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration. This wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
This is the third attempt to enjoin the consummation of a Rural Electrification Administration loan to the Louisiana Electric Cooperative. See Rural Electrification Administration v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., 354 F. 2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966), certiorari denied 385 U.S. 815, 87 S.Ct. 34, 17 L.Ed.2d 54.
Despite this Court’s previous explicit holding that private power companies themselves cannot enjoin as competitors the granting of a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration, appellants here seek to bar the loan as individual members of Louisiana Electric Cooperative, Inc., which is itself the beneficiary of the subject loan.
The effect of our holding in Rural Electrification Administration v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., supra, cannot be so easily circumvented. There the Court specifically held that apart from the plaintiff’s lack of standing, the Courts are without jurisdiction to review the Agency’s loan-making authority. The holding has been reiterated in Alabama Power Co. v. Alabama Electric Co-operative, Inc., 394 F. 2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968), certiorari denied 393 U.S. 1000, 89 S.Ct. 488, 21 L.Ed.2d 465.1
The district court’s order of dismissal is accordingly
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526 [No. 27439, Oct. 7, 1969].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Ala. Power Co. v. Ala. Elec. Coop., Inc., 394 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Rural Electrification Administration v. Cent. La. Elec. Co., Inc., 354 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Monastersky v. United States, 385 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1966)
- Cent. La. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Rural Electrification Administration, 385 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1966)
- Cont'l Nut Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 393 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1968)
- Ragen v. California, 393 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1968)