Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Administrative
CONSUMERS UNION OF the UNITED STATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Frank G. ZARB, Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
523 F.2d 1404·United States Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals·1975
Before TAMM, Chief Judge, HASTIE and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CONSUMERS UNION OF the UNITED STATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Frank G. ZARB, Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
Nos. DC-32, DC-33.
Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
Sept. 19, 1975.
Peter H. Schuck, Washington, D. C., for Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.
Patricia N. Blair, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (with whom Rex E. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Stanley D. Rose, Atty., Dept, of Justice, were on the brief), for the Federal Energy Administration.
Before TAMM, Chief Judge, HASTIE and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
The complaint in this case challenged a Federal Energy Administration interim price regulation for unleaded gasoline that was in effect only from June 1, 1974 to July 9, 1974. The district court rendered a declaratory judgment that the challenged regulation was invalid because it was imposed without such advance public notice and opportunity to comment as the Administrative Procedure Act requires. However, the court also denied the plaintiff’s prayer for relief by way of restitution. Both parties have appealed, the plaintiff from the denial of restitution, and the Federal Energy Administrator from the declaratory invalidation of the challenged order.
After examination of the briefs and the record, this court has concluded that there is no reversible error in either of the challenged provisions of the district court’s judgment.
The judgment is affirmed in its entirety-