ALASKA HELICOPTERS, INC., ET AL.

v.

ANDERSON ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (51 total)

• Ritchey v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 468 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …under the “saving to suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333. See Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 298, 98 L.Ed. 290 (1954); Sipe v. Amerada Hess Corp., 689 F. 2d 396 (3d Cir.1982); Green v. Ross, 481 F. 2d 102 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1068, 94 S.Ct. 577, 38 L.Ed.2d 473 (1973). All admiralty cases are governed by federal maritime law. See Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 378 n. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 1776 n. 1, 26 L.Ed.2d 339, 344 n. 1 (1970); Hess v. United States, 361…
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 645 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …e for a rate increase under NGA § 4(d). Simply put, rate filings consistent with contractual agreements are valid; those inconsistent with contractual obligations are not. Richmond Power & Light v. FPC, 481 F. 2d 490, 493 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1068, 94 S.Ct. 578, 38 L.Ed.2d 473 (1973). If the seller lacks authority to make the filing, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the filing and to determine the lawfulness of the rate increase.26 Contractual authority thus was a threshold is…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 628 F.2d 235 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
  …e Sierra-Mobile doctrine holds that a utility cannot file a revised rate schedule under Section 205(d) in contravention of its contractual obligations. See generally Richmond Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 481 F. 2d 490, 491-493 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1068, 94 S.Ct. 578,38 L.Ed.2d 473 (1973). For example, if an electric wholesaler has contracted to provide a certain quantity of electric power to a local utility at a fixed price, the wholesaler is not entitled to increase the price charged to the uti…

  ← 1 / 2 →