TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Public Power Association v. Power Authority of New York

Am. Pub. Power Ass'n v. Power Auth. of N.Y., 355 U.S. 64 (1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 18, 1957
Docket
No. 477
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
355 U.S. 6478 S. Ct. 1422 L. Ed. 2d 1071957 U.S. LEXIS 165
Cited by 6 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Per Curiam

355 U.S. 64 (1957)

AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION ET AL.

v.

POWER AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

No. 477.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided November 18, 1957. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

Northcutt Ely and Robert L. McCarthy for petitioners.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and John R. Davison, Solicitor General, for the State of New York, and Thomas F. Moore, Jr., Frederick P. Lee and Ralph A. Gilchrist for the Power Authority of New York, respondents.

A brief as amici curiae was filed by Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and Charles E. Corker, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of California; Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John B. Barnard, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Colorado; Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General, for the State of Nevada; Fred M. Standley, Attorney General, and Paul L. Billhymer, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of New Mexico; Will Wilson, Attorney General, James N. Ludlum, First Assistant Attorney General, and James W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Texas; E. R. Callister, Attorney General, for the State of Utah; and Thomas O. Miller, Attorney General, for the State of Wyoming.

*65 PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the cause is moot.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 11984: 11987: 11992: 12010: 12017: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coplin v. United States6 Cl. Ct. 115 (Ct. Cl. 1984)
  2. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Power Authority786 F. Supp. 316 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
  3. Nathaniel Holmes v. Melvin Laird, as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense459 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  4. Igartúa v. United States626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  5. Relevance of Senate Ratification History to Treaty Interpretation(OLC Apr. 9, 1987)
  6. United States v. ReedNo. Criminal No. 2015-0188 (D.D.C. July 27, 2017)

Most recent

  1. United States v. ReedNo. Criminal No. 2015-0188 (D.D.C. July 27, 2017)
  2. Igartúa v. United States626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  3. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Power Authority786 F. Supp. 316 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)
  4. Relevance of Senate Ratification History to Treaty Interpretation(OLC Apr. 9, 1987)
  5. Coplin v. United States6 Cl. Ct. 115 (Ct. Cl. 1984)
  6. Nathaniel Holmes v. Melvin Laird, as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense459 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list