Edwin I. Hatch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an agency’s sudden shift in the nature of proof required of the regulated party was not sufficiently explained and necessitated remand
• requiring “explicit recognition by [an agency] that the standard has been changed” and a genuine “attempt to forthrightly distinguish or outrightly reject apparently inconsistent precedent”
• remanding decision for further explanation because of the agency's failure to explain its reasons for changing course
• requiring “explicit recognition by [an agency] that the standard has been changed” and a genuine “attempt to forthrightly distinguish or outrightly reject apparently inconsistent precedent”
• remanding the case for an explanation of the Commission's rationale

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).