10 C.F.R. § 205.280
Purpose and scope
This subpart establishes special procedures pursuant to which refunds may be made to injured persons in order to remedy the effects of a violation of the regulations of the Department of Energy. This subpart shall be applicable to those situations in which the Department of Energy is unable to readily identify persons who are entitled to refunds specified in a Remedial Order, a Remedial Order for Immediate Compliance, an Order of Disallowance or a Consent Order, or to readily ascertain the amounts that such persons are entitled to receive.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1982–2003 · leading case: United States v. Exxon Corp., 773 F.2d 1240 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985).
United States v. Exxon Corp., 773 F.2d 1240 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985). “See Subpart V, 10 CFR § 205.280 through § 205.288 (1983), on administrative procecures of DOE for notice and hearing on alleged violations; See also Subpart 0, 10 CFR § 205.”
The Rio Grande, El Paso & Santa Fe R.R. Co. & Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Dep't of Energy, 234 F.3d 1 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “§ 4501 (a)(1); 10 C.F.R. § 205.280 . II. On January 10, 1978, Santa Fe filed a private overcharge action under § 210 of the ESA against Shell in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.”
Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards, 669 F.2d 717 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1982). “10 C.F.R. § 205.280 et seq., 44 Fed.Reg. 8566.”
City of Long Beach v. Dep't of Energy, 754 F.2d 379 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985). “” 10 C.F.R. § 205.280 . If the DOE were meant to have the authority to disburse the funds the DOE had required be deposited in escrow in the context of an exception relief proceeding, a provision similar to those contained in Subpart V would have been included in Subpart D.”
Int'l Drilling & Energy Corp. v. Watkins, 920 F.2d 14 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1990). “10 C.F.R. § 205.280 provides: *16 This subpart establishes special procedures pursuant to which refunds may be made to injured persons in order to remedy the effects of a violation of the regulations of the Department of Energy.”
Payne 22, Inc. v. United States, 762 F.2d 91 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985). “10 C.F.R. §§ 205.280 -.288. We disagree. We share the concern expressed by District Judge Hart in Consumer Energy Council v.”
New York Petroleum Corp. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 757 F.2d 288 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985). “On March 23, 1982, DOE and New York *290 reached a settlement, under which New York would pay $160,000 to DOE, which ultimately would decide who was entitled to it under the procedures of 10 C.F.R. § 205.280 (Subpart V). DOE felt that payment directly to the first purchasers of…”
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 760 F.2d 298 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985). “10 C.F.R. §§ 205.280 et seq. These regulations, known as Subpart *300 V regulations, provide for publication of a proposed decision and order by the DOE, receipt of public comments, and issuance of a final decision and order.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 618 F. Supp. 1199 (D. Del. 1985). “280 , which states, in pertinent part: This subpart establishes special procedures pursuant to which refunds may be made to injured persons in order to remedy the effects of a violation of the regulations of the Department of Energy.”
Caribou Four Corners, Inc. v. Am. Oil Co., 628 F. Supp. 363 (D. Utah 1985). “See 10 C.F.R. § 205.280 . 6 . It should be recalled that under the Delta/Beacon standards, a firm may be awarded exception relief up to a maximum of its entire purchase obligation.”
Highland Petroleum, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 798 F.2d 474 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1986). “” 10 C.F.R. § 205.280 (1986). In the instant case the parties stipulated in the Consent Order that under the applicable federal pricing regulations it was “extremely difficult to determine the exact amount by which any .”
In re Dep't of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litig., 671 F. Supp. 1318 (D. Kan. 1987). “10 C.F.R. § 205.280 . The Court heard oral argument on this motion on August 6, 1987.”
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.