16 U.S.C. § 823
Repeal of inconsistent laws
All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this chapter are repealed: Provided, That nothing contained herein shall be held or construed to modify or repeal any of the provisions of the Act of Congress approved
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1929–1992 · leading case: Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tuolumne River Expeditions, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commi
Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tuolumne River Expeditions, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commi (1985)
“16 U.S.C. § 823 . *1511 Petitioners argue that, because the facilities proposed here are extensions of the original Hetch Hetchy system, they are subject to the Raker Act and are therefore under the sole jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior, not the Commission.”
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Callaway (1973)
“” 16 U.S.C. § 823 . Con Ed submits that Corps licensing of hydroelectric plants under § 10 of the 1899 Act is inconsistent with § 29 of the Federal Power Act and that the former, to the extent that it applied to hydroelectric plants, has been repealed by the latter.”
Wolverine Power Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1992)
“” See 16 U.S.C. § 823 (c). Congress thus used the broader term “person” in this provision because it includes all three types of entities.”
The Montana Power Company, a Montana Corporation v. The Federal Power Commission (1964)
“Section 29 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 823 provides that “All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this chapter are repealed.”
Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1982)
“6 The Commission takes the position that section 29 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 823 (1976), repeals section 8 of MIRA to whatever extent section 8 of MIRA comes into conflict with the Commission’s asserted power to grant rights-of-way across reservations under its licensing…”
United States v. Southern Power Co. (1929)
“1077 , 16 USCA § 823. See 32 Opinions of Atty. Gen.”
State of California v. Federal Power Commission (1965)
“*924 The districts, however, will continue to receive the flows guaranteed to them under the Raker Act as long as they are content with their present facilities.”
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.