Cluster 682710 (1994)
green
· 41 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 15 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199420102026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Vulcan Arbor Hill Corporation v. Reich (1996)
See Alabama Power, 40 F.3d at 455 ("Statutory text is to be interpreted to give consistent and harmonious effect to each of its provisions.") This case illustrates the difference between contractual ambiguity and statutory clarity. 86 Because interpreting the "whole" contract renders the Davis Bacon language in the Legally Binding Commitment ambiguous, the district court must consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent.
"Statutory text is to be interpreted to give consistent and harmonious effect to each of its provisions."
green
Appalachian Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Interven… (1998)
As we noted in Alabama Power, Congress intended in enacting Title IV “to tie the obligation of utilities to meet the NOx emission limit to the use of low NOx burners.” Alabama Power, 40 F.3d at 455.
green
AZ Pub Svc Co v. EPA (1998)
As we noted in Alabama Power, Congress intended in enacting Title IV "to tie the obligation of utilities to meet the NOx emission limit to the use of low NOx burners." Alabama Power, 40 F.3d at 455.
green
WA Alliance of Tech. Workers v. DHS (2022)
See Ala. Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450 , 455 (D.C.
“Statutory text is to be interpreted to give consistent and harmonious effect to each of its provisions.”
Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-11070 ); J.A. 55, the vacatur annulled this dismissal in its entirety, Ala. Power Co., 40 F.3d at 456.
green
State v. Azar (2019)
Comm'n v. F.C.C. , 476 U.S. 355 , 357, 106 S.Ct. 1890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986) (articulating "the rule of construction that technical terms of art should be interpreted by reference to the trade or industry to which they apply") (citing Corning Glass Works v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188 , 201-02, 94 S.Ct. 2223 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) ); Alabama Power Co. v. EPA , 40 F.3d 450 , 454 (D.C.
"[W]here Congress has used technical words or terms of art, it is proper to explain them by referring to the art or science to which they are appropriate."
green
Heyliger v. People (2017)
Cir. 2002) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450 455, 309 U.S. App. D.C. 194 (D.C.
green
C C Distributors, Inc. v. United States (1997)
Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 , 111 S.Ct. 807, 810-11 , 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991); Alabama Power Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 40 F.3d 450, 454 (D.C.Cir.1994).
See Employees of Dept, of Public Health & Welfare v. Department of Public Health & Welfare, Missouri, 411 U.S. 279, 290 , 93 S.Ct. 1614, 1620-21 , 36 L.Ed.2d 251 (1973) (Marshall, J., concurring) (“basic canon of statutory construction that different provisions of the same statute normally should be construed consistently with one another”); Alabama Power Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 40 F.3d 450, 455 (D.C.Cir.1994) (“Statutory text is to be interpret…
green
United States v. Barnes, John (2002)
Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 252 F.3d 473, 481 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 , 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2331 , 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979)); see also Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450 , 455 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("[s]tatutory text is to be interpreted to give consistent and harmonious effect to each of its provisions"), we must determine if "committed by" can, consistent with its meaning, modify "use of force." The verb "commit" means "to do (something w…
See Alabama Power Co. v. EPA , 40 F.3d 450 , 456 (D.C.
declining to address a claim rendered moot by the court's vacatur of the agency's action
green
Reece v. Raoul (2025)
See Smith, 2019 IL 123264, ¶ 10 ; Faris, 35 Ill. 2d at 309 ; see also Alabama Power Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 40 F.3d 450 , 456 (D.C.
See Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450 , 456 (D.C.
declining to address a claim rendered moot by the court’s vacatur of the agency’s action
green
National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Jewell (2014)
See Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450 , 456 (D.C.Cir.1994) (declining to address a claim that was rendered moot by the court’s vacatur of the agency’s rule).
See Alabama Power Co. v. EPA 40 F.3d 450 , 456 (D.C.Cir.1994) (stating that to “vacate” means “to annul; to cancel or rescind; to declare, to make, or to render void; to defeat; to deprive of force; to make of no authority or validity; to set aside”) (citations omitted); see also Independent U.S. Tanker Owners Committee v. Dole, 809 F.2d 847, 855 (D.C.Cir.1987) (noting that vacating a regulation returns the conditions to the status quo ante), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 819 , 108…