PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,

v.

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …III infra, makes it unnecessary to discuss whether this limit on Congress’s power would keep it from doing what GISD claims it has done, cf. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 v. FPC, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 366-68, 308 F. 2d 318, 321-23 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 908, 83 S.Ct. 719, 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963) (FPC may empower municipality to condemn land despite state statute prohibiting municipality from doing so); Alabama NAACP State Conference of Branches v. Wallace, 269 F.Supp. 346 (M.D. [*1071] Ala.1967) (declarin…
• Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 1 OF Pend Oreille Cnty. v. City OF Seattle, 382 F.2d 666 (9th Cir. 1967)
  …ing PUD’s application. 26 F.P.C. 54 (1961). The Commission’s order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. FPC, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 308 F. 2d 318 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 908, 83 S.Ct. 719, 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963). Seattle commenced this suit March 8, 1963, for condemnation of those parts of PUD’s properties needed for the Boundary project.2 At pretrial conference the issue was raised as to Seattle’s right as a federal lic…
• Udall v. Littell, 338 F.2d 537 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
  …where the reservation is situated. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959). This is accomplished under a Tribal Code which has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Cf. Oliver v. Udall, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 306 F. 2d 819 (1962), cert. den., 372 U.S. 908.” Appellee’s complaint in the District 'Court had alleged that the Tribal Council “is the governing body of the Navajo Tribe and consists of 74 delegates.” Appellee’s affidavit in support of his motion for preliminary injunction set forth a ■detail…

  ← 1 / 2 →