CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. ET AL.
v.
MOBIL OIL CORP. ET AL.
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 Supreme Court modified its stay of the Tenth Circuit's mandate to permit the district court to conduct limited proceedings solely to determine whether a proposed settlement in this case should be approved. The Court authorized the district court to either approve and dispose of the case or disapprove the settlement, with the original stay remaining in effect if the settlement was rejected.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
C. A. 10th Cir. Joint application to vacate the stay entered on June 13, 1988 [486 U. S. 1051], presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, granted only to the limited extent that this Court’s order of June 13, 1988, granting the motion for recall and stay of the mandate of the' United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in this case pending this Court’s action on the petition for certiorari, shall be modified in the following respect: The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is authorized to remand the case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for the sole purpose of determining whether the settlement should be approved. The District Court is authorized only to carry out the necessary proceedings to determine whether the settlement should be approved, and either to disapprove the settlement or to enter the appropriate orders disposing of the case if the settlement is approved. If the settlement is disapproved, then this Court’s order of June 13, 1988, remains in effect without further modification. This Court’s order of June 30, 1988 [ante, p. 1231], granting the motion to defer consideration of the petition for certiorari in this case, remains in effect without modification.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adolf Lony v. E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co., 935 F.2d 604 (3d Cir. 1991)…1147, 1165 (5th Cir.1987) (defendant must assert a motion “within a reasonable time after the facts or circumstances which serve as the basis for the motion have developed and become known”), cert. denied sub nom., Crowley Maritime Cory. v. Zipfel, 487 U.S. 1245, 109 S.Ct. 2, 101 L.Ed.2d 954 (1988). Thus, the question is not one of fault but one of expedition. Once the litigation has progressed significantly in the federal court, a different factor enters into the equation, one not previously considered by…
Authorities Cited
- Woratzeck v. Ricketts, 486 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1988)
- Lankford v. Idaho, 486 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1988)