· 2/24/2014
Irby v. O'Neill
Citations
- 134 S. Ct. 1290
- 188 L. Ed. 2d 318
- 82 U.S.L.W. 3492
- 571 U.S. 1208
- 2014 WL 684213
- 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1461
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that when a state program has the incidental effect of “exert[ing] downward pressure on wholesale electricity rates” that “incidental effect is insufficient to state a claim for field preemption under the FPA”
- concluding that when a state program has the incidental effect of “exert[ing] downward pressure on wholesale electricity rates” that “incidental effect is insufficient to state a claim for field preemption under the FPA”
- concluding that when a state program has the incidental effect of “exert[ing] downward pressure on wholesale electricity rates” that “incidental effect is insufficient to state a claim for field preemption under the FPA”
- concluding that when a state program has the incidental effect of “exert[ing] downward pressure on wholesale electricity rates” that “incidental effect is insufficient to state a claim for field preemption under the FPA”
- concluding that when a state program has the incidental effect of “exert[ing] downward pressure on wholesale electricity rates” that “incidental effect is insufficient to state a claim for field preemption under the FPA”
- concluding that when a state program has the incidental effect of “exert[ing] downward pressure on wholesale electricity rates” that “incidental effect is insufficient to state a claim for field preemption under the FPA”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.