16 U.S.C. § 825p

Jurisdiction of offenses; enforcement of liabilities and duties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 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 96 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1942–2025 · leading case: United States v. Southern California Edison Co.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Southern California Edison Co. (2004) caed · cites it 7× “Further, 16 U.S.C. § 825p creates jurisdiction in the federal district courts to hear liability disputes arising out of the FPA.”

Richard Pressl v. Appalachian Power Company (2016) ca4 · cites it 5× “§ 1331 and 16 U.S.C. § 825p. The court then granted APCO’s motion to dismiss, analyzing the easement under Virginia law.”

Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass'n (2013) ca7 · cites it 6× “§ 1331 or the grant of jurisdiction in the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825p. Second, we examine whether the Federal Power Act completely preempts state causes of action in the field of wholesale power regulation, bringing the complaint within the complete preemption doctrine.”

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. an Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Ge (2008) ca9 · cites it 4× “§ 78aa and 16 U.S.C. § 825p, 4 as giving federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims brought to enforce federal obligations.”

California ex rel Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc. (2004) ca9 · cites it 5× “II We must first decide whether the district court had removal jurisdiction over this action.”

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning (2016) scotus “§ 77v(a) ; Federal Power Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. § 825p ; Connally Hot Oil Act of 1935, 15 U.”

Sherr v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (2016) scd · cites it 5× “) &SCE&G In the Notice of Removal, SCE&G asserted that the court has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825p. and original jurisdiction under 28 U.”

Coal. for Competitive Elec., Dynergy Inc. v. Zibelman (2018) ca2 “We need not consider the parties' disagreement regarding equity jurisdiction because we conclude (as did the Seventh Circuit) that federal law does not preempt the state statute -- that is, since Plaintiffs' claims fail either on the merits or for lack of standing, the question…”

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (2014) ca3 · cites it 2× “It is not whether the PUC correctly classified the Companies’ line-loss costs as generation costs in the first instance. 19 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.”

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co. (1951) scotus · cites it 2× “862 , 16 U. S. C. § 825p. There can be no doubt, therefore, that if the complaint, fairly construed in light of the successful determination of the issues, seeks to enforce a duty which the Federal Power Act recognizes, the District Court properly entertained the suit under the…”

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (2016) scd · cites it 4× “SCE & G In the Notice of Removal, SCE & G asserted that the court has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825p and original jurisdiction under 28 U.”

Portland General Electric Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2017) cadc · cites it 2× “§ 825o-l(b) (authorizing FERC to assess civil penalties of up to $1,000,000 per day for disobedience of any “rule or order”); FPA § 317,16 U.S.C. § 825p (granting district courts exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement actions).”

Show all 96 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.