15 U.S.C. § 791
Congressional declaration of purpose
The purposes of this chapter are (1) to provide for a means to assist in meeting the essential needs of the United States for fuels, in a manner which is consistent, to the fullest extent practicable, with existing national commitments to protect and improve the environment, and (2) to provide requirements for reports respecting energy resources.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1934–1979 · leading case: Ethyl Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
Ethyl Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “246 (1974) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (Supp. IV 1974)), provides: “No action taken under the Clean Air Act shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of…”
Mision Indus., Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency & Russell Train, Adm'r, 547 F.2d 123 (1st Cir. 1976). “This exemption is an accommodation of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. § 791 e£ seq. enacted to minimize dependence on imported oil.”
Sierra Club v. Env't Prot. Agency, 540 F.2d 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “The “purpose” section of ESECA, 15 U.S.C. § 791 (Supp. IV 1974), is as follows: The purposes of this chapter are (1) to provide for a means to assist in meeting the essential needs of the United States for fuels, in a manner which is consistent, to the fullest extent…”
Boehm v. United States, 123 F.2d 791 (8th Cir. 1941). “§§ 79c(d), 79g, 791, 79m, 79o, 79q(c), 79t(a), 79w, and other pertinent provisions of each of said Acts; and (3) in securing information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation concerning any matters to which any of such Acts relate, as may appear to the…”
Nancy Corinne Dyer & J. Raymond Dyer v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Union Elec. Co., Intervenor-Respondent, 287 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1961). “2d at pages 37 and 38, that section 12 (e) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 791 (e), does not lay down any prescriptions as to proxy solicitations, but instead it leaves this aspect to the Commission’s judgment and discretion, subjecting the field wholly…”
Locke Mfg. Companies v. United States, 237 F. Supp. 80 (D. Conn. 1964). “Compare Section 12(e) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 ( 15 U.S.C. § 791 (e), and Rule U-65 thereunder, which does limit expenses in connection with proxy solicitations under that Act.”
Rosen v. Alleghany Corp., 133 F. Supp. 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1955). “2d 784, 786 , the Court of Appeals, per Judge Learned Hand, had before it “ * * * the question whether the power of the Commission under § 12(e) [of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 15 U.S.C. § 791 (e) which is substantially identical with Section 14 of the…”
City of Santa Rosa v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 534 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1976). “Moreover, the Clean Air Act was itself amended by the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 [ 15 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.]. While this amendment did remove the administrator’s authority to impose parking surcharge regulations, it did not refer to the authority to…”
J. Raymond Dyer v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 291 F.2d 774 (8th Cir. 1961). “That order prohibited anyone (“Union and all other persons”) from soliciting proxies for purposes of the stockholders’ meeting of April 20, 1957, except upon the filing of a declaration under § 12(e) of the Act, *777 15 U.S.C.A. § 791 (e), and Rule U-62 of the Commission’s…”
Cnty. of Suffolk v. Sec'y of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368 (2d Cir. 1977). “§ 438a; the Energy Supply and Environmental Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq.; the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.”
Shell Oil Co. v. Dep't of Energy, 477 F. Supp. 413 (D. Del. 1979). “The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act, 15 U.S.C. § 791 , et seq. (“ESECA"). The ESECA, enacted in June of 1974, also confers broad information gathering authority on the FEA Administrator.”
Philadelphia Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 164 F.2d 889 (D.C. Cir. 1947). “They must therefore either satisfy the requirements of Section 12(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 791 (b), making it unlawful for a subsidiary to lend or in any manner extend its credit to a company in the same holding company system in contravention of rules, regulations or orders…”
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.