- » Law School
- » 1L Classes Outlines
- » 2L Classes Outlines
- » 3L Classes Outlines
- » Case Briefs
- » Bar Exam Materials
- » Free Legal Forms
- » Criminal Law
- » Bankruptcy Law
- » DUI/DWI Issues
- » Employment Law / EEOC
- » Divorce & Family Law
- » Immigration Law
- » Real Estate Law
- » Workers Compensation
- » Tax Law
- » Wills/Trusts/Estates Law
- » Environmental Law
- » Foreign Laws & Legal Sources
- » Insurance Law
- » Securities Law
- » Litigation Practice & Procedure
- » International Law
- » Admiralty
- » Alternative Dispute Resolution
- » Class Actions
- » Constitutional Law
- » Construction
- » Cyberlaw & E-Commerce
- » Education Law
- » Financial Crisis Litigation
- » Mass Torts and Procedure
- » Professional Malpractice
- » Military Law
- » Native American Law
- » Social Security Disability
- » Products Liability & Toxic Torts
- » Privacy Law
- » Pension & Benefits
- » Municipal Government
- » International Trade
- » Health Care
- » Commercial & Contracts Law
- » Business Law
- » Corporate Law
- » Mergers & Acquisitions
- » Animal Law
- » Elder Law
- » Election Law
- » First Amendment
- » Gender Law
- » Government Benefits
- » Government Contracts
- » Homeland Security
- » Legal Ethics
- » Litigation
- » Computer Technologies Law
- » Tort Law
- » Personal Injury
- » Probate Law
- » Intellectual Property Law
- » Defective Products
- » Motor Vehicle Accidents
- » Jewish Lawyer
- » Jewish Lawyer Los Angeles
- » Jewish Lawyer New York
- » Los Angeles Lawyers
- » New York Lawyers
- » Traffic Law
- » DMV Law
- » Law School
- » 1L Classes Outlines
- » 2L Classes Outlines
- » 3L Classes Outlines
- » Case Briefs
- » Bar Exam Materials
- » Free Legal Forms
- » Criminal Law
- » Bankruptcy Law
- » DUI/DWI Issues
- » Employment Law / EEOC
- » Divorce & Family Law
- » Immigration Law
- » Real Estate Law
- » Workers Compensation
- » Tax Law
- » Wills/Trusts/Estates Law
- » Environmental Law
- » Foreign Laws & Legal Sources
- » Insurance Law
- » Securities Law
- » Litigation Practice & Procedure
- » International Law
- » Admiralty
- » Alternative Dispute Resolution
- » Class Actions
- » Constitutional Law
- » Construction
- » Cyberlaw & E-Commerce
- » Education Law
- » Financial Crisis Litigation
- » Mass Torts and Procedure
- » Professional Malpractice
- » Military Law
- » Native American Law
- » Social Security Disability
- » Products Liability & Toxic Torts
- » Privacy Law
- » Pension & Benefits
- » Municipal Government
- » International Trade
- » Health Care
- » Commercial & Contracts Law
- » Business Law
- » Corporate Law
- » Mergers & Acquisitions
- » Animal Law
- » Elder Law
- » Election Law
- » First Amendment
- » Gender Law
- » Government Benefits
- » Government Contracts
- » Homeland Security
- » Legal Ethics
- » Litigation
- » Computer Technologies Law
- » Tort Law
- » Personal Injury
- » Probate Law
- » Intellectual Property Law
- » Defective Products
- » Motor Vehicle Accidents
- » Jewish Lawyer
- » Jewish Lawyer Los Angeles
- » Jewish Lawyer New York
- » Los Angeles Lawyers
- » New York Lawyers
- » Traffic Law
- » DMV Law
In re Federal Water Service Corp. By: LN on May 02, 2012 09:40:31 AM |
Summary: Commission rejected the proposed plan claiming that the amended plan was same as the original plan. Facts: When the matter was remanded for further examination, the petitioners Chenery Group proposed the same plan that the commission had earlier rejected in another case of the petitioners. The commission reaffirmed its original order. The commission claimed that though petitioners had submitted an amended plan but it was the same as the original plan. Issue: Whether the petitioner's amended plan has to be admitted? Holding: No, the petitioner's amended plan could not be admitted. Procedure: Application of the petitioners was dismissed. Rule: The statute limits the power and duty of the commission for withholding the approval solely to the cases where someone had to establish from the evidence that actual misconduct was accompanied by conflicting interests. Rationale: There is was no evidence to suggest that the rule had to be promulgated immediately or the petitioners would suffer injury. Hence, the plan was rejected by the commission. |
View Comments |
Leave Comment | |
After logging in, you can add comments |