16 U.S.C. § 825q
Repealed. Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, § 1277(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 978
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1935–1995 · leading case: Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73 (1991).
Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73 (1991). “863 , 16 U. S. C. § 825q, entitled "Conflict of jurisdiction," which governs certain overlapping responsibilities of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the regulation of power companies under the Public Utility Act…”
Mun. Resale Serv. Customers v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Ohio Power Co., Intervenor, 43 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 1995). “FERC concluded that SOCCO’s coal price exceeded the prevailing market price, and was unreasonable and not includable in Ohio Power’s wholesale rates. Ohio Power Co., 39 FERC ¶ 61,098 (1987).”
Ohio Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 880 F.2d 1400 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “The Statute The central issue raised by petitioner concerns the applied meaning of the phrase “subject matter” in section 318 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 825q, an issue to which section 13(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 *330 (PUHCA), 15 U.”
In Re Am. States Pub. Serv. Co., 12 F. Supp. 667 (D. Maryland 1935). “By express provision in title 2 (section 318 [16 U.S.C.A. § 825q]), if any individual or company is subject to any requirements of title 1, as well as to any requirements under title 2, the requirements of title 1 shall alone prevail, unless the Securities and Exchange…”
City of New Orleans v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 67 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “To support their aggrievement argument, FERC relies on the Ohio Power decisions of this circuit and the Supreme Court, which address the relationship between FERC and the SEC, and the applicability of § 318 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 825q (1988), which…”
Mississippi Indus. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See 16 U.S.C. § 825q (1982). . In the Matter of Middle South Utilities, Inc.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 954 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “” 16 U.S.C. § 825q. FERC defended its order on two grounds: first, by claiming there was no conflict between the agencies because the FERC order required Ohio Power to pay a market price that was less than cost and the SEC orders simply required Ohio Power to pay no more than…”
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.