Citation network
Exxon Corp. Vs. Eagerton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 08, 1983
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 176 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Exxon Corp. v. EagertonSearch
-
U.S. 176 (1983) Exxon Corp. v. EagertonSearch
-
permitting producers to pass the increase through to consumers was only incidental. Cf. Producers Transportation Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
The applicable principles of preemption were recently summarized in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. StateSearch
-
la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141 , 458 U. S. 153 (1982), quoting Rice v. SantaSearch
-
compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
law 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 725 , 451 U. S. 748 (1981). As we have previously recognized, e.g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. WisconsinSearch
-
to recover this expense from their purchasers is a matter within the sphere of FERC's regulatory authority. See FPC v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Here, as in Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. at 451 U. S. 749 . Just as the statute at issue in Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
See Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. KansasSearch
-
exemption to forbid enforcement of a contractual arrangement to shift the burden of the tax increase. See Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
within the meaning of the Contract Page 462 U. S. 190 Clause. See United States Trust Co. v. NewSearch
-
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. KansasSearch
-
Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. at 459 U. S. 410 , quoting Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSearch
-
the performance of duties created by contracts entered into prior to its enactment. See Allied Structural Steel Co. v. SpannausSearch
-
United States Trust Co. v. NewSearch
-
Hudson Co. v. McCarterSearch
-
U. S. 191 law may be applied to contracts for the sale of beer that were valid when entered into, Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 25 (1878), a law barring lotteries may be applied to lottery tickets that were valid when issued, Stone v. MississippiSearch
-
under preexisting contracts of employment that made no provision for work-related injuries, New York Central R. Co. v. WhiteSearch
-
was incidental to its main effect of shielding consumers from the burden of the tax increase. Cf. Henderson Co. v. ThompsonSearch
-
Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
applicable rule of conduct, it is sharply distinguishable from the measures struck down in United States Trust Co. v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, supra, and Allied Structural Steel Co. v. SpannausSearch
-
U.S. at 438 U. S. 244 , quoting United States Trust Co. v. NewSearch
-
employers that had entered into pension agreements, its sole effect was to alter contractual duties. Cf. Worthen Co. v. KavanaughSearch
-
schemes that displaced any rates previously established by contract. In Page 462 U. S. 193 Midland Realty Co. v. KansasSearch
-
Id. at 300 U. S. 113 (footnote omitted). In Union Dry Goods Co. v. GeorgiaSearch
-
electric light and power, notwithstanding the effect of the order on preexisting contracts. Accord, Stephenson v. BinfordSearch
-
unless they charged rates which might exceed those they had contracted to charge). Producers Transportation Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
owner exemption. Because neither of the challenged provisions adversely affects a fundamental interest, see, e.g., Dun v. BlumsteinSearch
-
U. S. 629 -631 (1969), or contains a classification based upon a suspect criterion, see, e.g., Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
Page 462 U. S. 196 regulation of economic and commercial matters. See, e.g., Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. StateSearch
-
Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
Kotch v. BoardSearch
-
owner exemption is reinforced by the fact that that provision is solely a tax measure. As we recently stated in Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
See Lehnhausen v. LakeSearch
-
Allied Stores of Ohio v. BowersSearch
-
U. S. 522 , 358 U. S. 526 -527 (1959). V forSearch
-
Together with No. 81-1268, Exchange Oil & Gas Corp. et al. v. EagertonSearch
-
U. S. 40 , 417 U. S. 50 , n. 11 (1974), quoting Street v. NewSearch
-
of the pass-through prohibition to oil, for it does not affirmatively appear that that issue was decided below. Bailey v. AndersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial