Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cajun Electric Power v. Gulf States Util Co, 95-30087 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 95-30087 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 10, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 95-30087 CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATIVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (91-CV-1091) (September 29, 1995) Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM* In this appeal from the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Defendant-Appellee Gulf States Utilities Compa
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 95-30087 CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATIVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (91-CV-1091) (September 29, 1995) Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM* In this appeal from the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Defendant-Appellee Gulf States Utilities Company, we have now reviewed the applicable facts and law as presented to us by able counsel in their outstanding briefs and in their oral arguments before the court, and have deliberated on the pertinent points raised in this appeal within the framework * Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. of the long-standing, multi-faceted litigation that continues between the parties and others in the district court. As a result, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the subject injunction, and we therefore AFFIRM 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer