Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided June 6, 1988No. 21865, 24398, 24415, 24428 and 75-1632Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge

My dissent in this case is compelled by my conclusion that the majority, under the guise of restitution, has exceeded its jurisdiction and engaged in prohibited retroactive ratemaking in stretching a valid resti-tutionary award of $738,720 with respect to one invalid rate order, into an award of $2,605,588 that is based upon the alleged invalidity of several valid rate orders whose validity was never attacked by an action. Interest to run on both awards for approximately fifteen years. In my opinion restitutionary awards must be based only on particular rate orders that courts with…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API