Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co.green2 sentences2006See Montana-Dakota, Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 341 U.S. 246, 251 , 71 S.Ct. 692 , 95 L.Ed. 912 (1951) (holding that the right to a reasonable utility rate is the right to the rate that the Federal Power Commission files or fixes, and that, except for review of the Commission’s orders, the courts can assume no right to a different rate on the ground that it is the only or the more reasonable one). 2006See Montana-Dakota, Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 341 U.S. 246, 251 , 71 S.Ct. 692 , 95 L.Ed. 912 (1951) (holding that the right to a reasonable utility rate is the right to the rate that the Federal Power Commission files or fixes, and that, except for review of the Commission’s orders, the courts can assume no right to a different rate on the ground that it is the only or the more reasonable one). | 1 | 1 |
N.C. Steel, Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Insurancegreen1 sentence2002The insurance commissioner has the sole power of regulating the rates and that power includes examining any information deemed necessary to determine the excessiveness or adequacy of the rates.”); N.C. Steel Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, 496 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. 1998) (“The General Assembly has given the insurance commissioner the duty of setting rates.... | 1 | 1 |
Amundson & Associates Art Studio, Ltd. v. National Council on Compensation Insurancegreen2 sentences2002Co., 745 N.E.2d 591, 605 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (“[T]he filed rate doctrine precludes a private right of action governing premium rate disputes....”); Amundson & Assocs., 988 P.2d at 1216 (“If proposed rates are filed with and approved by the insurance commissioner, the filed rate doctrine applies. . . . 2002Art Studio Ltd. v. Nat’l Council on Compensation Ins., 988 P.2d 1208, 1213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999) (“The filed rate doctrine stands for the proposition that because an administrative agency is vested with the authority to determine what rate is just and reasonable, courts should not adjudicate what a reasonable rate might be in a collateral lawsuit.”). | 1 | 1 |
HORWITZ EX REL. v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.green2 sentences2002Co., 745 N.E.2d 591, 605 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (“[T]he filed rate doctrine precludes a private right of action governing premium rate disputes....”); Amundson & Assocs., 988 P.2d at 1216 (“If proposed rates are filed with and approved by the insurance commissioner, the filed rate doctrine applies. . . . 2002Co., 745 N.E.2d 591, 605 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (“[T]he filed rate doctrine precludes a private right of action governing premium rate disputes....”); Amundson & Assocs., 988 P.2d at 1216 (“If proposed rates are filed with and approved by the insurance commissioner, the filed rate doctrine applies. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Watergate East, Inc. v. District of Columbia Public Service Commissiongreen1 sentence2001Comm’n, 662 A.2d 881, 888-89 (D.C. 1995) (describing similar D.C. statute, D.C.Code §43-529, as “a codification of the filed rate doctrine”). . | 1 | 1 |
Porr v. NYNEX Corp.green1 sentence2001See e.g., Porr, 660 N.Y.S.2d at 443 (applying filed rate doctrine to bar state law claims based on tariff approved by New York agency); Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1994) (applying filed rate doctrine to bar RICO and fraud claims based on tariffs approved by New York and New England agencies); Sun City Taxpayers’ Ass’n v. Citizens Utils. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences2001But, see Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 127 Pa. Commw. 97, 109 , 561 A.2d 43, 49-50 (1989) (discussing federal filed rate doctrine). 2001But, see Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 127 Pa. Commw. 97, 109 , 561 A.2d 43, 49-50 (1989) (discussing federal filed rate doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross
green
2 sentences2006Describing the doctrine as a rule that preserves the exclusive role of a regulatory agency in approving rates, and focusing on the interaction between the rates an insurer charges and the reserves it accumulates, the court determined that the doctrine barred Appellants’ claims because a decision from the trial court that IBC was holding excessive reserves would necessarily require a recalculation of rates that the Department had approved. 814 A.2d at 804-05 . 2006Describing the doctrine as a rule that preserves the exclusive role of a regulatory agency in approving rates, and focusing on the interaction between the rates an insurer charges and the reserves it accumulates, the court determined that the doctrine barred Appellants' claims because a decision from the trial court that IBC was holding excessive reserves would necessarily require a recalculation of rates that the Department had approved. 814 A.2d at 804-05 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005American Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Central Office Telephone Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 118 S.Ct. 1956 , 141 L.Ed.2d 222 (1998).” Ciamaichelo, 814 A.2d at 804 . 2005American Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Central Office Telephone Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 118 S.Ct. 1956 , 141 L.Ed.2d 222 (1998).” Ciamaichelo, 814 A.2d at 804 . | 2 | 2001–2005 |
Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
yellow
2 sentences2002Filed Rate Doctrine ■ Blue Cross argues that the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer under the filed rate doctrine, which it contends, prohibits a collateral attack on rates, and thereby reserves, approved by the Insurance Department. *804 The filed rate doctrine has its origins in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 260 U.S. 156 , 43 S.Ct. 47 , 67 L.Ed. 183 (1922), wherein the plaintiff alleged that the railway company fixed rates in violation of federal antitrust law. 2002Filed Rate Doctrine ■ Blue Cross argues that the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer under the filed rate doctrine, which it contends, prohibits a collateral attack on rates, and thereby reserves, approved by the Insurance Department. *804 The filed rate doctrine has its origins in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 260 U.S. 156 , 43 S.Ct. 47 , 67 L.Ed. 183 (1922), wherein the plaintiff alleged that the railway company fixed rates in violation of federal antitrust law. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross
green
2 sentences2011The trial court did not rule on the objections as both parties agreed to stay the matter pending this Court’s decision in Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross, 589 Pa. 415 , 909 A.2d 1211 (2006) (Ciamaichelo I), where this Court held Nonprofit Law violations and breaches of contractual and fiduciary duty claims fall under the Court of Common Pleas’ jurisdiction and are not precluded by the filed rate doctrine; we remanded the case for the Commonwealth Court to consider whether the plaintiffs had standing under the Nonprofit Law. 2011The trial court did not rule on the objections as both parties agreed to stay the matter pending this Court’s decision in Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross, 589 Pa. 415 , 909 A.2d 1211 (2006) (Ciamaichelo I), where this Court held Nonprofit Law violations and breaches of contractual and fiduciary duty claims fall under the Court of Common Pleas’ jurisdiction and are not precluded by the filed rate doctrine; we remanded the case for the Commonwealth Court to consider whether the plaintiffs had standing under the Nonprofit Law. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Employers Ins. v. Com., Dept. of Transp.
green
2 sentences2006Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 581 Pa. 381 , 865 A.2d 825 , 830 n. 5 (2005). [8] In light of our view of the Complaint, we do not address whether the filed-rate doctrine would have applied in this context. [1] A person complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by a person subject to the jurisdiction of an agency, in violation of a statute or regulation administered or issued by the agency may file a complaint with the agency. 2006Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 581 Pa. 381 , 865 A.2d 825 , 830 n. 5 (2005). [8] In light of our view of the Complaint, we do not address whether the filed-rate doctrine would have applied in this context. [1] A person complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by a person subject to the jurisdiction of an agency, in violation of a statute or regulation administered or issued by the agency may file a complaint with the agency. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Chandler v. Anthem Insurance Companies
green
1 sentence2002Inc., 8 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp.
green
1 sentence2001See e.g., Porr, 660 N.Y.S.2d at 443 (applying filed rate doctrine to bar state law claims based on tariff approved by New York agency); Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1994) (applying filed rate doctrine to bar RICO and fraud claims based on tariffs approved by New York and New England agencies); Sun City Taxpayers’ Ass’n v. Citizens Utils. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.