Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton & Azusa v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Empirical Analysis
723 F.2d 656 · 1984
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General v. Consumer Publishing Co. (1985), Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon Cp v. Bonneville Power Administration T (1985)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 824D (§ 205 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825 (§ 301 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 825E (§ 306 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 49 U.S.C. § 10708
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-Gordon Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“agencies may not impose undue hardship by suddenly changing direction, to the detriment of those who have relied on past policy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, customers are protected by the right to refund with interest, accrued at the prime rate and compounded quarterly. 18 C.F.R. § 35 .19a(a)(2). The cities argue that “forced loans” irreparably harm them regardless of subsequent refunds. Even if this is true, it has never been found decisive. In fact, most of the plaintiffs — e.g., the competing carriers in Arrow, the utility plaintiffs, and the customers in cases where no suspension had been ordered — were not protected by re funds, but were still denied judicial review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a fine tuning of doctrine that does not require rulemaking unless it imposes severe hardship or circumvents existing rules.”
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.