42 U.S.C. § 1801
OIL PIPELINE RATEMAKING METHODOLOGY.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1948–2000 · leading case: Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 555 F.2d 82 (3rd Cir. 1977).
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 555 F.2d 82 (3rd Cir. 1977). “42 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (1946). 32 . Id.”
James C. Hobbs v. United States of Am., Atomic Energy Comm'n, 451 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 1971). “The Proceedings The present proceedings were commenced on October 9, 1956, when Hobbs filed an application with the Patent Compensation Board of the Atomic Energy Commission for compensation under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 42 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (1952 ed.), 60 Stat.”
Bulloch v. United States, 133 F. Supp. 885 (D. Utah 1955). “755 , 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1801 (b), 1803, 1806, in force when the acts complained of by plaintiff occurred), this entire area of ■activity is removed from the operation •of the Tort Claims Act.”
Medrano v. D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2000). “1994) (citations omitted ); 42 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (enacted in 1983).”
Radium Mines, Inc. v. United States, 153 F. Supp. 403 (Ct. Cl. 1957). “755 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1801 , and the Regulations and Circulars of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and that the refusal of the United States to do what it represented in these writings that it would do created a liability on its part to the plaintiff on one or all of…”
Fletcher v. United States Atomic Energy Comm'n, 192 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1952). “…was ample evidence to support this finding and disclaimer. Affirmed. 1 . Chapter 724, §§ 1 et seq., 60 Stat. 755 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.”
Baxter v. Pace, Sec'y of the Army, 193 F.2d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1951). “755 ; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1801 , et seq. The Veterans Preference Act of 1944 provides, in section 12: “ * * * when any or all of the functions of any agency are transferred to, or when any agency is replaced by, some other agency, or agencies, all preference employees in the function…”
Young v. Kellex Corp., 82 F. Supp. 953 (E.D. Tenn. 1948). “Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq. As a declaration of policy the Act looks forward to a time when atomic energy may be used for “improving the public welfare, increasing the standard of living, strengthening free competition in private enterprise, and promoting world peace,” but…”
Fletcher v. Watson, Com'r of Patents, 204 F.2d 68 (D.C. Cir. 1953). “755 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq., on the theory that the government had used the invention therein described in its atomic energy program.”
United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. Lilienthal, 84 F. Supp. 640 (D.D.C. 1949). “Each motion to dismiss must be sustained for the following reasons: The action of AEC of which the plaintiffs complain was authorized by the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq.; the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in that the complaint…”
Consol. Eng'g Corp. v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 558 (Ct. Cl. 1955). “755 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq. [now 42 U.S.C.”
Doe v. Stincer, 990 F. Supp. 1427 (S.D. Fla. 1997). “PAI-MI: (1) to assure that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected; and (2) to assist States to establish and operate a protection and advocacy system for individuals with mental illness which will *1430 (A)protect and advocate the rights of such individuals…”
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.