Verizon Telephone Companies v. Federal Communications Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Arizona Grocery proscribes “the retroactive revision of established rates through ex post reparations”
• rejecting the “assertion that the agency may not retroactively correct its own legal mistakes, even when those missteps have been highlighted by the federal judiciary”
• ‘Arizona Grocery has been and should be understood in the terms in which it was decided .... ”
• reliance is “something short of reasonable” ”[i]n light of the ongoing legal challenges” to the old rule
• “Arizona Grocery has been and should be understood ... as a proscription against the retroactive revision of established rates through ex post reparations.”
• “Arizona Grocery has been and should be understood in the terms in which it was decided . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).