10 C.F.R. § 205.191
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1975–1985 · leading case: Exxon Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 91 F.R.D. 26 (N.D. Tex. 1981).
Exxon Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 91 F.R.D. 26 (N.D. Tex. 1981). “10 C.F.R. §§ 205.191 , 295.196(b). During the administrative appeal from a Remedial Order, an appellant may raise all of its factual and legal defenses to the allegations contained in the Remedial Order.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Zarb, 532 F.2d 1363 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1976). “1 *1366 On July 25, 1974, the Federal Energy Administration 2 (FEA) issued a Notice of Probable Violation to ARCO pursuant to 10 CFR § 205.191 . The Notice stated: “It is felt that there still exists a supplier/wholesale purchaser reseller relationship between ARCO and Mr.”
McWhirter Distrib. Co. v. Texaco Inc., 668 F.2d 511 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1981). “ny of the actions complained of had violated, were violating, or would violate any applicable regulation or law” ; that, without divulging this conclusion, and for reasons forbidden by law, “DOE, on November 23, 1977, knowingly exceeded its authority and power by issuing to…”
Missouri Terminal Oil Co. v. Edwards, 659 F.2d 139 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1981). “” 10 C.F.R. § 205.191 (b). If a firm does not file a reply with the agency within the applicable time period, it “shall be deemed to have admitted the accuracy of the factual allegations and legal conclusions stated in the Notice of Probable Violation,” and the agency may…”
Hudtwalker v. United States Dep't of Energy (In Re Vantage Petroleum Corp.), 25 B.R. 471 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1982). “10 C.F.R. § 205.191 (1980). Thereafter negotiations ensued.”
Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 498 F. Supp. 707 (D. Del. 1980). “” 10 C.F.R. § 205.191 (emphasis added). This very language belies any conclusion that the NOPV is “definitive” and not merely a “tentative” determination.”
United States v. Heller, 635 F.2d 848 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1980). “See 10 C.F.R. § 205.191 (1979). . See id. § 205.”
Hawthorne Oil & Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 647 F.2d 1107 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1981). “On May 10, 1977 the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) of DOE issued a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) to Hawthorne pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 205.191 , alleging that certain sales of crude oil by Hawthorne were made at prices in excess of prices permitted by the…”
Texaco, Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, 490 F. Supp. 874 (D. Del. 1980). “” 10 C.F.R. § 205.191 (a). 8 If the ERA determines that a violation of the pricing regulations has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur, the process moves to its second step with the issuance of a PRO.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 429 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Cal. 1976). “Compare 10 C.F.R. 205.191 with 10 C.F.R. 205.192.”
Diversified Chemicals & Propellants Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 432 F. Supp. 859 (N.D. Ill. 1977). “The issuance of such a notice is authorized by 10 C.F.R. § 205.191 . The next step provided for by the regulations after a notice of probable violation has issued is a remedial order.”
United States v. Exxon Corp., 470 F. Supp. 674 (D.D.C. 1979). “10 C.F.R. § 205.191 , as amended in January, 1978, sets forth the procedures to be followed in issuing a notice of probable violation and in responding to one.”
— 10 C.F.R. § 205.191(a) — 1 case
Clark Oil Co., Inc. v. Texaco Inc., 609 F. Supp. 1373 (D. Del. 1985).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.