# Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · July 16, 1992 · 970 F.2d 1206

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001911

## Case

- **Full name:** CONOCO, INC. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3589 v. Samuel K. SKINNER, Secretary of Transportation Warren G. Leback, Maritime Administrator and the United States of America CONOCO, INC. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., in No. 91-3920 v. Samuel K. SKINNER, Secretary of Transportation Nicholas F. Brady William A. Kime, Commandant of the Coast Guard Warren G. Leback, Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation Carol B. Hallett, Commissioner of Customs, U.S. Customs Service
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** July 16, 1992
- **Citations:** 970 F.2d 1206; 1992 A.M.C. 2816; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15988
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Garth, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Mansmann, Nygaard, Roth, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001911

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in a different context, that “courts must discern the meaning of ‘notwithstanding’ from the legislative history, purpose, and structure of the entire statute”
- explaining that whether the term “shall” is construed as directory or mandatory is dependent on an examina tion of Congressional intent
- noting that appellate jurisdiction over the entire matter would be proper as long as the court had exclusive jurisdiction over one of the challenged regulations, citing Suburban O’Hare Comm’n
- affirming Hobbs Act dismissal of claims against Maritime Administration and Coast Guard, and taking jurisdiction only of claim against Maritime Administration which had also been raised in protective petition for review
- noting that when a statute directs judicial review of a particular type of agency action, our review should extend to actions that are “tantamount” to those specified

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 18, 1992.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge; BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, and GARTH * , Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by petitioners/appellants having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001911. Public record. Not legal advice.