PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ET AL.

v.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

Citator

Cited By

• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n OF Tex., 833 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1987)
  …7. See Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 272 U.S. 605, 613, 47 S.Ct. 207, 210, 71 L.Ed. 432 (1926); Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 536 F.Supp. 653, 655 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd mem., 696 F. 2d 981 (3d Cir.1982), aff'd mem., 461 U.S. 912, 103 S.Ct. 1888, 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (1983). In Napier the Supreme Court stated: We hold that state legislation is precluded, because the Boiler Inspection Act, as we construe it, was intended to occupy the field. The broad scope of authority conferred…
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated April 9 v. Smith, 87 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …ear that his claim of privilege was directed solely against explaining what role he might have played in the fact that records were no longer available rather than a general claim that the records within themselves might incriminate him.”), vacated, 461 U.S. 912, 103 S.Ct. 1889, 77 L.Ed.2d 280 (1983). Thus, for the Court to treat appellant’s statement as a waiver would create an intolerable result, placing appellant in the position of remaining silent and being held in contempt for failing to produce the r…
• United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n v. Sholly, 463 U.S. 1224 (U.S. 1983)
  …ed by the Court.” Respondents moved to retax costs, asserting that under the circumstances it would be unfair to burden them with petitioners’ costs as well as their own. The Court, over the dissent of two Justices, denied the motion on May 2, 1983, 461 U. S. 912, and respondents now seek reconsideration of that decision. In again denying respondents’ motion to retax costs, the Court fails to exercise the sound discretion contemplated by Rule 50.2. The rationale of Rule 50.2 is that a petitioner who prevail…