Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Panda Brandywine, L.P.
District Court, D. Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SMALKIN, District Judge.
Claiming in its first amended complaint that it is invoking both the federal question and the diversity jurisdiction of this Court to seek a declaratory judgment and money damages, the plaintiff, which is a major electric generating and distribution utility, asks relief against the defendant, which is a cogeneration facility certified under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The plaintiff claims that, contrary to the terms of the regulations issued under PURPA governing certification of Qualifying Cogeneration Facilities and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Independent Energy Producers Ass'n v. California Public Utilities CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Kamine/Besicorp Allegany L.P. v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1995
- Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Public Service Commission v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Moore v. Equitrans, L.P.District Court, N.D. West Virginia · 2014