Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Tennessee Valley Auth. Vs. Hill

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 1978

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

71 entries 8 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Morton Vs. Mancari US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1974
  2. Marbury Vs. Madison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1803
  3. Crooks Vs. Harrelson US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1930
  4. Brooks Vs. Dewar US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  5. United States Ex Rel. Greathouse Vs. Dern US Supreme Court · May 08, 1933
  6. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. Vs. Austin US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1898
  7. Sec Vs. Sloan US Supreme Court · May 15, 1978
  8. Hecht Co. Vs. Bowles US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1944
  9. U.S. 153 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill
    Search
  10. U.S. 153 (1978) Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
    Search
  11. the dam's completion pending the filing of an appropriate environmental impact statement. Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA
    Search
  12. that TVA's final environmental impact statement for Tellico was in compliance with the law. Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA
    Search
  13. Congress intended to exempt. Cf. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National
    Search
  14. U. S. 535 , 417 U. S. 549 (1974), quoting Posadas v. National
    Search
  15. Ibid. See Georgia v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  16. United States v. Borden
    Search
  17. Wood v. United
    Search
  18. Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg
    Search
  19. Environmental Defense Fund v. Froehlke
    Search
  20. s position, although the Appropriations Committees apparently agreed with petitioner's views. Only recently, in SEC v. Sloan
    Search
  21. is not mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every violation of law. This Court made plain in Hecht Co. v. Bowles
    Search
  22. the District Judge in the first litigation involving the Tellico Dam and Reservoir Project. Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA
    Search
  23. MR. JUSTICE POWELL's dissent places great reliance on Church of the Holy Trinity v. United
    Search
  24. of a project, because the agency would no longer have a meaningful opportunity to weigh the benefits of the project versus the
    Search
  25. Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA
    Search
  26. enacted long after inception of the project to produce an unreasonable result. Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe
    Search
  27. itself. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  28. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United
    Search
  29. in terms of any remaining reasonable decisionmaking power. Cf. National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman
    Search
  30. F.2d 359, 363, and n. 5 (CA5), cert. denied sub nom. Boteler v. National
    Search
  31. them a retroactive effect. As this Court stated in Page 437 U. S. 206 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United
    Search
  32. an environmental impact statement cannot reasonably be applied to projects substantially completed. E.g., Pizitz, Inc. v. Volpe
    Search
  33. Ragland v. Mueller
    Search
  34. Greene County Planning Board v. FPC
    Search
  35. Transportation v. Volpe
    Search
  36. F.2d 1323, 1331, cert. denied sub nom. Fugate v. Arlington
    Search
  37. that the first purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. E.g., United States v. American
    Search
  38. entitled to significant weight in determining whether a prior statute has been superseded. See United States v. Langston
    Search
  39. applying to completed or substantially completed projects reflects the initial legislative intent. See, e.g., Fleming v. Mohawk
    Search
  40. United States v. American
    Search
  41. Armstrong Co. v. Nu-Enamel
    Search
  42. Sorrells v. United
    Search
  43. U. S. 187 n. 33, that the precept stated in Church of the Holy Trinity was somehow undermined in Crooks v. Harrelson
    Search
  44. Cong.Rec. 25689-25690 (1973). See also Sierra Club v. Froehlke
    Search
  45. This Court had occasion in Hecht Co. v. Bowles
    Search
  46. question is whether this discretion was abused in denying respondents' prayer for an injunction. Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri
    Search
  47. Yakus v. United
    Search
  48. S. 329 -330, a decree in one case will seldom be the exact counterpart of a decree in another. See, e.g., Eccles v. People's
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill
    Search
  50. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial