Cluster 383816 (1980)
green
· 23 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 12 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198020032026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Rose Truck Line v. ICC, 683 F.2d 943, 948 (5th Cir.1982); Alamo Express, Inc. v. ICC, 673 F.2d 852, 856 (5th Cir.1982); Mississippi Public Service Commission v. ICC, 650 F.2d 551 , 553 (5th Cir. 1981); State of Texas v. United States, 642 F.2d 87, 89-90 (5th Cir. 1981); Watkins Motor Lines v. ICC, 641 F.2d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir. 1981); Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 149-50 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied sub nom., 454 U.S. 831 , 102 S.Ct. 128 , 70 L.Ed.…
green
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Wyo Ben, Inc. v. Int… (1983)
Rose Truck Line v. ICC, 683 F.2d 943, 948 (5th Cir.1982); Alamo Express, Inc. v. ICC, 673 F.2d 852, 856 (5th Cir.1982); Mississippi Public Service Commission v. ICC, 650 F.2d 551 , 553 (5th Cir.1981); State of Texas v. United States, 642 F.2d 87, 89-90 (5th Cir.1981); Watkins Motor Lines v. ICC, 641 F.2d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir.1981); Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 149-50 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied sub nom., 454 U.S. 831 , 102 S.Ct. 128 , 70 L.Ed.2d …
green
Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. And Osborn Transportation, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the Un… (1982)
Cf. Central Power and Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 155-56 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding the ICC had authority to reconsider certain rates following remand by the reviewing court after a determination on the merits notwithstanding a statutory five-year prohibition on reconsideration initiated by the Commission), supplemented on rehearing, 639 F.2d 1104 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831 , 102 S.Ct. 128 , 70 L.Ed.2d 108 (1981); Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Unite…
holding the ICC had authority to reconsider certain rates following remand by the reviewing court after a determination on the merits notwithstanding a statutory five-year prohibition on reconsideration initiated by the Commission
green
National Insulation Transportation Committee v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, … (1982)
See Secretary of Agriculture v. United States, 347 U.S. 645 , 74 S.Ct. 826 , 98 L.Ed. 1015 (1954); Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 150 (5th Cir. 1980).
The payback demand was a serious and important issue and required more than the perfunctory treatment given it by the FERC if the request were denied in Opinion Nos. 10 and 10-A. Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1980); *711 Pitre Brothers Transfer v. United States, 580 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1978). 38 VACATED AND REMANDED. 1 .
See Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 149 (5th Cir. 1980); Mitchell Energy Corp. v. FERC, 580 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Sunnyland Packing Co., 557 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir. 1977).
green
The State of Texas v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., a… (1985)
The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. 401 U.S. at 416 , 91 S.Ct. at 823 (citations omitted); see also Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 149 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831 , 102 S.Ct. 128 , 70 L.Ed.2d 108 (1981).
green
Iowa Power and Light Company, a Corporation v. Burlington Northern, Inc., a Corporation, Iowa Power and Light… (1981)
See Central Power and Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1980), petition for rehearing granted Feb. 26, 1981.
green
Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc. (1981)
See Central Power and Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1980), petition for rehearing granted Feb. 26, 1981.
green
TransWest Express LLC v. Perdue (2021)
Cir. 1993); see also Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 145 (5th Cir. 1980) (recognizing that a “voluntary remand” is a request by an agency for remand without judicial consideration of the merits whereas a “court-generated remand” is a “remand after consideration of the merits”).
recognizing that a “voluntary remand” is a request by an agency for remand without judicial consideration of the merits whereas a “court-generated remand” is a “remand after consideration of the merits”
green
Iowa Public Service Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Burlington Northe… (1981)
See also Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 172-175 (5th Cir. 1980) (remanding for clarification of whether the language or history of § 10709 permits consideration of geographic competition). 12 Should the Commission finally determine that geographic competition is not relevant to market dominance, our affirmance of the Commission's finding, of course, would be unchanged.
remanding for clarification of whether the language or history of § 10709 permits consideration of geographic competition
See also Central Power & Light Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 137, 172-175 (5th Cir. 1980) (remanding for clarification of whether the language or history of § 10709 permits consideration of geographic competition).
remanding for clarification of whether the language or history of § 10709 permits consideration of geographic competition