Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1DissentRoney, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent. The thesis of the Commission is that it has the unreviewable authority to suspend the pipeline’s initial rate filing and, as an adjunct of that authority, it has the power to fix an unreviewable interim rate for the seven month period. The idea that the Commission can set an unreviewable rate without following the statutory ratemaking procedures runs counter to the entire plan established by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Act.
This is ratemaking. We should not hide from that fact. The Commission candidly admits that it is making an interim rate. To suggest that the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of TradeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Londoner v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.