Entex, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, United Gas Pipeline Company

The opinion concludes with an order of remand, directing the lower tribunal to reconsider the agency order using the correct "arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" standard under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The opinion concludes with the word “REMANDED,” indicating that the appellate court sent the case back to the lower tribunal for additional action.

The opinion lists the court as “United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit,” showing that the D.C. Circuit exercised appellate jurisdiction over the FERC order.

The opinion ends with a disposition stating that the case is sent back, indicating the appellate court found error in the prior handling and ordered a new proceeding consistent with the correct standard of review.

In Entex, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, United Gas Pipeline Co., the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on February 21, 1991 and determined that the prior decision was improper, ordering a remand for further proceedings consistent with the proper standard of review.

The appellate court found that the lower proceeding had applied an incorrect standard of review to the FERC order, and therefore sent the matter back for further adjudication consistent with the proper arbitrary‑capricious, abuse‑of‑discretion standard.

In Entex, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, United Gas Pipeline Company, 927 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the appellate court issued an order marked “REMANDED,” indicating the lower‑court decision must be revisited consistent with the proper standard of review.

The decision was rendered by the D.C. Circuit reviewing a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order involving Entex and United Gas Pipeline Company.

The action arose from Entex’s challenge to a regulatory order issued by FERC concerning United Gas Pipeline Company.

Finding that the lower court applied an incorrect standard of review to the agency order, the appellate court sent the matter back for reconsideration.

The appellate court concluded that the lower tribunal applied an improper standard of review to the agency order and therefore sent the matter back for further proceedings consistent with the proper administrative‑law standard.

The appellate court reversed the lower‑court decision and sent the matter back to the lower tribunal for further proceedings consistent with the proper standard of review.