Fiochetta, M., Aplt. v. Majcher Fiochetta, M.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the outcome of Washington's litigation regarding the validity of Tacoma's federal license to construct a power plant on a river precluded a later suit brought by taxpayers
• holding final judgment against the State barred subsequent action by citizens because citizens' public rights were represented by the State in the earlier proceeding
• holding final judgment against the State barred subsequent action by citizens because citizens’ public rights were represented by the State in the earlier proceeding
• explaining that “all objections” to agency action encompassed by exclusive-review provision “must be made in the Court of Appeals or not at all”
• holding, where the Federal Power Act gave courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction over administrative orders, “all objections . .. must be made in the Court of Appeals or not at all.”’
• noting that the state’s cross-complaint included a claim that the project would interfere with navigation in violation of a Washington statute and then holding that the claims in the cross-complaint were barred under section 313(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).