Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Abraham

Federal Circuit

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Abraham

71 F. App'x 852

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 2003

DocketNo. 03-1207

StatusPublished

This text of 71 F. App'x 852 (Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Abraham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Abraham, 71 F. App'x 852 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ claims under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1971. See Consol. Edison Co. v. Abraham, No 97-2876 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2002). The district court held that the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”), despite being owned by a “state” signatory to the settlement set forth in In re Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 653 F.Supp. 108 (D.Kan.1986), was nevertheless entitled to apply for crude oil refunds under the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 205, Subpart V. The district court further held that the decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy to award PREPA an overcharge refund was not in excess of the agency’s authority and was supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the standard applicable at the district court. See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir.1999) (citing Conroy v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1994)). Summary judgment is only appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Having applied that standard of review, we conclude that the district court made no errors of law in its grant of summary judgment. The parties agree that there are no disputes of material fact. We affirm based upon the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ claims under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1971. See Consol. Edison Co. v. Abraham, No 97-2876 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2002). The district court held that the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”), despite being owned by a “state” signatory to the settlement set forth in In re Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation, 653 F.Supp. 108 (D.Kan.1986), was nevertheless entitled to apply for crude oil refunds under the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 205, Subpart V. The district court further held that the decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy to award PREPA an overcharge refund was not in excess of the agency’s authority and was supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the standard applicable at the district court. See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir.1999) (citing Conroy v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1994)). Summary judgment is only appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Having applied that standard of review, we conclude that the district court made no errors of law in its grant of summary judgment. The parties agree that there are no disputes of material fact. We affirm based upon the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. App'x 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-v-abraham-cafc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack