Standard Oil Company of California
Volume 78 · 78 F.T.C. 1587
Extraction note: this decision's boundaries or caption were hard to read automatically; check the source volume.
Cite this decision
Standard Oil Company of California, 78 F.T.C. 1587 (1971). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v078-0173
Report an error in this record (decision id v078-0173)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1587 at length asserted changes in the industry. Accordingly, respondents have had opportunities and have made use of such opportunities to raise this point. We were not, and are not now, persuaded that respondents have made a showing on alleged changes such as would justify holding further hearings in this case or reconsideration of the Commission’s decision and order, and, so, we will not grant this request. Accordingly, It is ordered, That respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed April 2,1971, be and it hereby is, denied. It is further ordered, That respondents’ request for oral argument on their petition for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied. Chairman Kirkpatrick not participating.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. Docket 8827. Order, May 7, 1971 Order granting request by respondent to file reply to answer of the Commission counsel to respondent’s motions for reconsideration and disqualification. Orver Granting Motion For Reconsiweration This matter is before the Commission upon the request, filed April 19, 1971, by respondent, Standard Oil Company of California, for leave to file a reply to the answer, filed April 12, 1971, to respondents’ motions for reconsideration and disqualification. Respondents, Standard Oil Company of California (“Standard”) and Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn, Inc., on March 16, 1971, and March 17, 1971, respectively, filed with the hearing examiner their motions for reconsideration and disqualification, seeking, in substance, reconsideration and rescission of the Commission’s order issuing the complaint, the disqualification of Chairman Kirkpatrick and the opportunity to argue their position orally before the Commission. By - memorandum of April 8, 1971, Chairman Kirkpatrick explained his . decision declining to disqualify himself. On April 12, 1971, the abovementioned answer to respondents’ motions for reconsideration and disqualification was filed.
The Commission, by order of April 13, 1971, denied the motions of “Standard” and Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn, Inc., for reconsideration and disqualification, as well as their requests to argue their position orally before the Commission. Respondent “Standard’s” present request having been filed April 19, 1971, well after the Commission’s order, dated April 18, 1971, will