AMOS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF ALABAMA, ET AL.

v.

HADNOTT ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

• Pac. GAS & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1983)
  …cal supervising authority’s right to control the manufacture of electricity generated by nuclear facilities.” 111 Cong. Rec. 19832 (1965). Our summary affirmance in Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143 (CA8 1971), summarily aff’d, 405 U. S. 1035 (1972), is fully consistent with this reading of the division of regulatory authority. Minnesota’s effort to regulate radioactive waste discharges from nuclear plants fell squarely within the field of safety regulation reserved for federal regulatio…
• Silkwood v. Kerr-McGEE Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1984)
  …ations.11 Those regulations constitute a uniform body of law carefully designed to balance safety and efficiency in nuclear facilities across the country. Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143, 1153-1154 (CA8 1971), summarily aff’d, 405 U. S. 1035 (1972). The effectiveness of the overall program requires that nuclear policy and regulation be insulated from ad hoc, uninformed and perhaps biased decisionmaking.12 It is reason [*283] able for a nuclear facility to be held liable, even without f…
• Train v. Colo. Pub. Interest Research Grp., Inc., 426 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976)
  …any agency under the FWPCA. This conclusion is reinforced by Senator Muskie’s reference to the case of Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143 (CA8 1971). In that case, which was subsequently [*16] affirmed summarily by this Court, 405 U. S. 1035 (1972), the Eighth Circuit had held that the AEA created a pervasive regulatory scheme, vesting exclusive authority to regulate the discharge of radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants in the AEC, and pre-empting the States from regulating s…