Notes of Decisions
Mays v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 699 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
· cites it 7× “See 16 U.S.C. § 831c. Further, Congress has extended the protection afforded federal employees to TVA employees in other aspects, such as covering TVA employees under the Civil Service Reform Act and the Federal Employees Compensation Act.”
North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 515 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 5× “Arguing that it is not, North Carolina points to waivers of immunity contained in the TVA Act, 16 U.S.C. § 831c, which provides that the TVA "may sue and be sued in its corporate name," and in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”
United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991).
· cites it 3× “Section 9 of the Act provides that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) shall be substituted as defendant in any suit against a TVA employee arising from “act[ions] within the scope of his office or employment,” 16 U. S. C. § 831c — 2(b)(1), and that an action against the TVA is…”
Thacker v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 139 S. Ct. 1435 (2019).
· cites it 3× “60 , 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b). That provision serves to waive sovereign immunity from suit.”
Gary Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 868 F.3d 979 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 5× “1987) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b)), a corporate agency of the United States that is expressly authorized to engage in commercial, power-generating activities, among other functions, 16 U.”
Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 585 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, by TVA and TDEC in their implementation of the Tims Ford Reservoir Land Management and Disposition Plan (“LMDP”), based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) prepared by TVA and TDEC, and for violations of the TVA Act of 1933 (“TVA Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 831c(k)(a)…”
United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266 (1943).
· cites it 2× “[7] While respondent owned most of the lands necessary for the Appalachia reservoir, about half of those not yet acquired lay in the state of Tennessee, in which, so far as appears, it had no power of eminent domain.”
Tennessee Valley Auth. v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 692 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
· cites it 4× “TVA has a separate corporate identity, TVA Act, § 4, 16 U.S.C. § 831c, and possesses the power to enter into binding contracts for the provision “of electric utility services.”
John H. Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 712 F.2d 1047 (6th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “The act creating the TVA divides the functions and powers of the TVA into those which are specifically proprietary in nature and those which are acts which can be performed by the TVA on behalf of the United States, 16 U.S.C. § 831c. Clearly, under section 831c(b), the TVA has…”
Bobo v. AGCO Corp., 981 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 5× “2d at 1008 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 831c(h, i) (1933)) (alteration in original).”
Greg Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc, 35 F.4th 421 (6th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Jacobs cannot benefit from derivative immunity if the TVA itself is not immune. Second, if we determine that the TVA would be immune under Thacker, then we must decide whether the district court employed the proper test in determining which of Jacobs’s acts and omissions were…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b) — 55 cases
United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991).
“Section 9 of the Act provides that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) shall be substituted as defendant in any suit against a TVA employee arising from “act[ions] within the scope of his office or employment,” 16 U. S. C. § 831c — 2(b)(1), and that an action against the TVA is…”
North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 515 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008).
“Arguing that it is not, North Carolina points to waivers of immunity contained in the TVA Act, 16 U.S.C. § 831c, which provides that the TVA "may sue and be sued in its corporate name," and in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”
Mays v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 699 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
“See 16 U.S.C. § 831c. Further, Congress has extended the protection afforded federal employees to TVA employees in other aspects, such as covering TVA employees under the Civil Service Reform Act and the Federal Employees Compensation Act.”
Greg Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc, 35 F.4th 421 (6th Cir. 2022).
“Jacobs cannot benefit from derivative immunity if the TVA itself is not immune. Second, if we determine that the TVA would be immune under Thacker, then we must decide whether the district court employed the proper test in determining which of Jacobs’s acts and omissions were…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(c) — 1 case
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(d) — 2 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(f) — 6 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(g) — 4 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(h) — 43 cases
Mays v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 699 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
“See 16 U.S.C. § 831c. Further, Congress has extended the protection afforded federal employees to TVA employees in other aspects, such as covering TVA employees under the Civil Service Reform Act and the Federal Employees Compensation Act.”
John H. Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 712 F.2d 1047 (6th Cir. 1983).
“The act creating the TVA divides the functions and powers of the TVA into those which are specifically proprietary in nature and those which are acts which can be performed by the TVA on behalf of the United States, 16 U.S.C. § 831c. Clearly, under section 831c(b), the TVA has…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(i) — 17 cases
Gary Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 868 F.3d 979 (11th Cir. 2017).
“1987) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b)), a corporate agency of the United States that is expressly authorized to engage in commercial, power-generating activities, among other functions, 16 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(j) — 6 cases
Gary Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 868 F.3d 979 (11th Cir. 2017).
“1987) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b)), a corporate agency of the United States that is expressly authorized to engage in commercial, power-generating activities, among other functions, 16 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(k) — 2 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(k)(a) — 5 cases
Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 585 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2009).
“, by TVA and TDEC in their implementation of the Tims Ford Reservoir Land Management and Disposition Plan (“LMDP”), based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) prepared by TVA and TDEC, and for violations of the TVA Act of 1933 (“TVA Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 831c(k)(a)…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 831c(k)(c) — 1 case
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.