Consolidated Edison v. U.S. Dept., Energy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the Court of Federal Claims “has long possessed jurisdiction to consider [ ] claims [brought] . . . under the ‘illegal exaction’ doctrine”
• observing that a plaintiff may sue to oppose a series of ongoing illegal exactions in the United States Court of Federal Claims and that a determination that prior exac-tions were unlawful would have res judicata effect of preventing future exactions
• declining to address the money damages issue because the CFC would provide an adequate remedy
• “[T]he Court of Federal Claims may well supply an adequate remedy in cases without a complex ongoing federal-state interface.”
• “In Bowen, the Supreme Court linked its judgment to a specific set of circumstances that are not present in this case.”
• “In Bowen, the Supreme Court linked its judgment to a specific set of circumstances that are not present in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).