Boroughs of Chambersburg and Mont Alto, Pennsylvania and the Cities of Hagerstown and Thurmont, Maryland v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Potomac Edison Company, Intervenor. The Potomac Edison Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Boroughs of Chambersburg and Mont Alto, Pennsylvania, Intervenors. Borough of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Potomac Edison Company, Intervenor. Borough of Chambersburg and Mont Alto, Pennsylvania, and Cities of Hagerstown, Thurmont, and Williamsport, Maryland v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Potomac Edison Company, Intervenor’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably United Municipal Distributors Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1984), Cities of Bethany, Bushnell, Cairo, Carmi, Casey, Flora, Greenup, Marshall, Metropolis, Newton, Rantoul, & Roodhouse v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1984)
22 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Mobile Gas Service Corporation · Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. · Thaggard v. United States · United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Memphis Light Gas and Water Division Federal Power Commission · Richmond Power and Light of the City of Richmond, Indiana v. Federal Power Commission, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Intervenor Anderson Power and Light of the City of Anderson, Indiana v. Federal Power Commission, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Intervenor
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“due Solely to the fact that (certain low rate customers) were protected by the Mobile-Sierra doctrine * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o deny ... customers the benefit of the lower rate until their respective rate contracts expire will unduly prolong the present discriminations. Proper practice and the avoidance of undue discrimination requires, except in unusual cases, that once a new rate is adopted by a company it be made available and applied uniformly to all customers of the same class at the same time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing else " had been demonstrated; and we specifically "intimate(d) no view whatever concerning the additional factors necessary to constitute a violation of § 205(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.