Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. 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 the petitioners for review of agency orders were sufficiently aggrieved from the resulting loss of customers that their claims were ripe for judicial review
• holding that because it was “not improper for FERC to consider the desirability of competition” under the Natural Gas Act, the consideration of that factor did not violate the Takings Clause
• explaining that, since FERC lawfully declared that a pipeline would “serve the public convenience and necessity,” it “served a public purpose”
• noting that FERC had denied a pipeline company's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity because the company had not conducted an open season or otherwise demonstrated adequate market support for the proposed project

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).