Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scalia
Under the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) must presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the “just and reasonable” requirement imposed by law. The presumption may be overcome only if FERC concludes that the contract seriously harms the public interest. These cases present two questions *531about the scope of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine: First, does the presumption apply only when FERC has had an initial opportunity to review a contract rate without the presumption? Second, does the presumption impose…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-Gordon Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by169 opinions
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P'ship v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- American Meat Institute v. United States Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
164 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.