PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE; AND CITY OF SEATTLE V. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY

Citator

Cited By

• Ga. Power Co. v. 138.30 Acres of Land, 617 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …find persuasive and relevant to determining the nature of federal and state interests in this case the distinction observed by the Ninth Circuit in Public Utility District No. 1 v. City of Seattle, 382 F. 2d 666, 669-70 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 803, 90 S.Ct. 22, 24 L.Ed.2d 59 (1969) (even though it was made in support of its finding, which we deem erroneous, that Section 21 does not delegate full eminent domain power): We first observe that the position of a licensee is distinguishable from t…
• Ga. Power Co. v. 54.20 Acres OF Land, 563 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …F. P. C., 387 U.S. 428, 87 S.Ct. 1712, 19 L.Ed.2d 869 (1967). I thus find persuasive the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille Co. v. City of Seattle, 382 F. 2d 666, 669-70 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 803, 90 S.Ct. 22, 24 L.Ed.2d 59:9 We first observe that the position of a licensee is distinguishable from that of the United States with respect to furthering the national interest. By issuance of a license the United States is not acting in the natio…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. TWO Parcels OF Land ONE 1691 SQ. Foot More OR Less Parcel OF Land IN the Town OF NEW London, 822 F.2d 1261 (2d Cir. 1987)
  …nsee acts frequently “on a local scale,” in contrast to the United States, which “acts [under the FPA] in the public interest on a national scale.” Public Utility District No. 1 v. City of Seattle, 382 F. 2d 666, 669 (9th Cir.1967), cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 803, 90 S.Ct. 22, 24 L.Ed.2d 59 (1969). It is obvious that Amtrak occupies a position quite different from that of a licensee under the FPA. Congress has specifically found that “modern, efficient commuter rail passenger service is important to the via…