U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 15B— NATURAL GAS

15 U.S.C. § 717u

Jurisdiction of offenses; enforcement of liabilities and duties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

The District Courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this chapter or the rules, regulations, and orders thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. Any criminal proceeding shall be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant, and process in such cases may be served wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 1254, 1291, and 1292 of title 28. No costs shall be assessed against the Commission in any judicial proceeding by or against the Commission under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Total Gas & Power North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 859 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Total Gas & Power North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 859 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “” 15 U.S.C. § 717u. In addition, Total sought a declaration that adjudication of a NGA violation and imposition of a civil penalty through an in-house FERC administrative proceeding would violate, in relevant part, the Appointments Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process…”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Ct. 1562 (2016). · cites it 2× “5 The case began in state court when a natural gas purchaser sued a producer for breach of a contract setting sale prices. Prior to the alleged breach, the producer had filed those contractual rates with the Federal Power Commission, as the NGA required.”
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. an Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Ill We next turn to Williston’s argument that the district court erred in holding that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction over Williston’s state law claims. Wil-liston argues that it does not need to rely on supplemental federal jurisdiction over its state law claims,…”
Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990). · cites it 2× “833 , 15 U. S. C. § 717u; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat.”
Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P'ship v. Essar Steel Minnesota LLC, 843 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2016). “”); 15 U.S.C. § 717u (granting federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over all claims “brought to enforce *334 any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, [the NGA] or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder”).”
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Kanwal Singh, 707 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “Section 22 of the Natural Gas Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 717u, provides: The District Courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of…”
Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P'ship v. Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC, 103 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (D. Minnesota 2015). · cites it 6× “§ 1331 and the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717u, because according to Plaintiff its claims “depend on resolution of substantial predicate, questions of federal law.”
Metro. Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 767 F.3d 335 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “833 , 15 U.S.C. § 717u; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat.”
Lewis v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Hous. Auth., 896 P.2d 503 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “833 , 15 U.S.C. § 717u; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat.”
Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.L.C. v. Nadel & Gussman, L.L.C., 844 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1331 as well as under 15 U.S.C § 717u. 2 Federal courts have jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
E. Shore Nat. Gas Co. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 298 A.2d 322 (Del. 1972). · cites it 5× “15B] in support of the Federal Power Commission’s primary administrative jurisdiction; that Stauffer contended that, under 15 U.S.C. § 717u, the Commission “must first rule on such alleged violation^]” of the Act (285 A.”
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 567 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “ETP asserts, however, that it is entitled to a de novo proceeding in a federal district court by virtue of § 24 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717u, quoted above, to challenge the assessment of a penalty, and ETP maintains that FERC does not have the authority to require trial-type…”
Show all 50 citing cases →
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.