Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fpc Vs. Texaco, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 10, 1974

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

42 entries 4 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. Vs. Fpc US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1945
  2. Phillips Petroleum Co. Vs. Wisconsin US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1954
  3. Phelps Dodge Corp. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1941
  4. Fpc Vs. Hunt US Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1964
  5. FPC v. Texaco
    Search
  6. Inc. - 417 U.S. 380 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. Texaco
    Search
  7. Inc., 417 U.S. 380 (1974) FPC v. Texaco
    Search
  8. ascertained, and its rates fixed with respect to its own costs. Although for a time following Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin
    Search
  9. setting area rates based on composite cost considerations. We sustained this mode of rate regulation. In Wisconsin v. FPC
    Search
  10. This was wholly consistent with the Court's prior views, see FPC v. Natural
    Search
  11. FPC v. Hope
    Search
  12. Illinois Gas Co. v. Public
    Search
  13. the investor and the consumer Page 417 U. S. 389 interests.' FPC v. Hope
    Search
  14. Piedmont & Northern R. Co. v. Comm'n
    Search
  15. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  16. National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    Search
  17. American Trucking Assns. v. United
    Search
  18. Los Angeles Gas Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  19. Comm'n, 289 U. S. 287 , 289 U. S. 304 . And see San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper
    Search
  20. plainly indicates, 'to make the pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances.' FPC v. Natural
    Search
  21. bear and relying on later regulation of pipeline rates to protect the consumer is contrary to Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public
    Search
  22. rates will be subject to suspension and refund within the limits set out in Order No. 428. As the Court noted in FPC v. Sunray
    Search
  23. sense, is Page 417 U. S. 392 that the rates fixed by the Commission be higher than a confiscatory level. FPC v. Natural
    Search
  24. and 5. Neither the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases nor FPC v. Louisiana
    Search
  25. Burlington Truck Lines v. United
    Search
  26. States, 371 U. S. 156 , 371 U. S. 167 -168 (1962), quoting in part from Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB
    Search
  27. SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  28. Southern Louisiana Area Rate Cases, 428 F.2d 407, 441 (CA5), cert. denied sub nom. Associated Gas Distributors v. Austral
    Search
  29. Together with No. 72-1491, Dougherty, Executor, et al. v. Texaco
    Search
  30. permit large producers or pipelines to raise their rates in excess of the maximum authorized in their contracts, FPC v. Sierra
    Search
  31. United Gas Co. v. Mobile
    Search
  32. The Commission's position is not advanced by FPC v. Hunt
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. Texaco
    Search
  34. In Wisconsin v. FPC
    Search
  35. FPC v. Natural
    Search
  36. Piedmont & Northern R. Co. v. Comm'n
    Search
  37. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper
    Search
  38. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public
    Search
  39. FPC v. Sunray
    Search
  40. FPC v. Louisiana
    Search
  41. Associated Gas Distributors v. Austral
    Search
  42. FPC v. Sierra
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial