ELR Citation: ELR 20178
No(s). s. 74-1167 et al (9th Cir. Dec 17, 1975)

The court unanimously denies defendant's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. It goes on, however, to supplement and clarify its initial decision for plaintiffs, 5 ELR 20708, in this action brought by a group of consumer-owned electric utilities to enforce the preference clause in the 1939 federal reclamation law.

Counsel for Plaintiff
D. Emerson Duncan, II
Duncan, Allen & Mitchell
1775 K Street, NW
Washington DC 20006
(202) 833-2300

Counsel for Defendants
William G. Smitherman, U.S. Attorney
5000 Federal Building
Phoenix AZ 85025
(602) 261-3011

Other counsel are listed at 5 ELR 20708.

Before TUTTLE,^* KOELSCH, and BROWNING, Circuit Judges:

Judges Tuttle, Koelsch and Browning duly considered defendants-appellers' Petition for Rehearing and concluded to supplement the opinion with the per curiam opinion attached hereto; and thereupon voted unanimously to deny the Petition for Rehearing. Judges Koelsch and Browning further voted, and Judge Tuttle recommended, against a rehearing in banc.

The full court having been so advised and no judge of the court in active service having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing in benc, the Petition for Rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for rehearing in banc is rejected.