Freehold Cogeneration Associates, L.P. v. Board Of Regulatory Commissioners Of The State Of New Jersey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a field preemption claim was ripe because “the plaintiff did not challenge the state's ultimate substantive decision, but rather its authority to conduct proceedings.”
• holding that an order of a state regulatory agency requiring the renegotiation of rate for energy modified the terms of a purchase agreement in violation of PURPA section 210(e)
• discussing hardship to preemption plaintiff of delay under utility prong of Step-Saver
• discussing hardship to preemption plaintiff of delay under utility prong of Step-Saver
• \[T]he application of the preemption doctrine requires a determination of congressional intent in enacting a federal law.\
• judgment would be conclusive because, inter alia, factual developments at ongoing state proceedings would not add to construction of allegedly preemptive federal statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).