§Why CasetextPricing

SolarCity Corporation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 53 First MOTION to Dismiss Case

66 Cited authorities

  1. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

    429 U.S. 477 (1977)   Cited 2,108 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws

  2. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.

    495 U.S. 328 (1990)   Cited 858 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"

  3. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 534 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  4. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

    472 U.S. 585 (1985)   Cited 621 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization

  5. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.

    524 U.S. 214 (1998)   Cited 368 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “respondent's state-law claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine”

  6. Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution

    513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 904 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff who had already filed a fraud suit under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and RICO had standing to seek a declaration that the defendant's fraudulently procured contracts were invalid

  7. Somers ex rel. Herself v. Apple, Inc.

    729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 645 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's theory was "implausible in the face of contradictory . . . facts alleged in her complaint"

  8. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall

    453 U.S. 571 (1981)   Cited 424 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the filed rate doctrine prohibits a federally regulated seller of natural gas from charging rates higher than those filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission"

  9. ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp.

    696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 395 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the rule of reason is the proper framework" for assessing whether conditional rebates on long-term contracts are anticompetitive because "price-cost test cases are inapposite" when "price itself was not the clearly predominant mechanism of exclusion"

  10. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc.

    568 U.S. 216 (2013)   Cited 97 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "general corporate power" to enter into acquisitions does not clearly authorize anticompetitive consolidation of hospital ownership

  11. Section 12-821.01 - Authorization of claim against public entity, public school or public employee

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01   Cited 648 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that claims against public employers and their employees are distinct by requiring service of separate notices of claim on each

  12. Section 1342 - Rate orders of State agencies

    28 U.S.C. § 1342   Cited 237 times
    Prohibiting federal-court interference with orders issued by state administrative agencies to public utilities

  13. Section 34 - Definitions applicable to sections 34 to 36

    15 U.S.C. § 34   Cited 124 times
    Defining "local government" to include various entities "established by State law in one or more States"

  14. Section 12-820.01 - Absolute immunity

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01   Cited 83 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing conditions for absolute immunity

  15. Section 40-253 - Application for rehearing; hearing; effect; decision

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-253   Cited 35 times
    Stating that an Arizona agency has primary jurisdiction over matters that have been decided before or arising from that agency

  16. Section 48-2302 - District as municipal corporation

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-2302   Cited 6 times

    An agricultural improvement district organized under the provisions of this chapter is a public, political, taxing subdivision of the state, and a municipal corporation to the extent of the powers and privileges conferred by this chapter or granted generally to municipal corporations by the constitution and statutes of the state, including immunity of its property and bonds from taxation. A.R.S. § 48-2302

  17. Section 30-805 - Confidential customer information; protection

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-805   Cited 3 times

    A. Notwithstanding any other law, a public power entity may not release customer-specific information without specific prior written customer authorization unless the information is reasonably required for legitimate account collection activities or credit analysis activities or when such information aids in providing safe and reliable service to the customer or unless otherwise provided by court order. A public power entity shall adopt reasonable rules and procedures to ensure confidentiality. B

  18. Section 30-802 - [Repealed] Coordinated scheduling of generation or transmission

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-802   Cited 2 times

    A public power entity shall participate in and support an independent system operator, an independent system administrator or other efforts to coordinate scheduling of generation or transmission within this state or region. A.R.S. § 30-802 Repealed by L. 2022, ch. 191,s. 6, eff. 9/23/2022.

  19. Section 30-803 - Consumer protection; unfair practices; policies; ombudsman; cities and towns

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-803   Cited 2 times

    A. A public power entity shall establish an ombudsman office to investigate retail electric customer service complaints and adopt rules and procedures to protect the public against deceptive, unfair and abusive business practices. The rules and procedures adopted by the public power entity shall address at least: 1. Deceptive, unfair and abusive business practices, including deposit requirements and reconnection fees. 2. Intrusive and abusive marketing practices. 3. Deceptive or untrue advertising

  20. Section 30-810 - Buy-through program; terms, conditions, limitations; definition

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-810   Cited 1 times

    A. On or before January 1, 2024, a public power entity that is an agricultural improvement district established pursuant to title 48, chapter 17 shall offer a buy-through program that both: 1. Includes terms, conditions and limitations, including a minimum qualifying load and a maximum amount of program participation. 2. Is structured to maintain system reliability and to avoid a cost shift to nonparticipating customers. B. For the purposes of this section, "buy-through" means a purchase of electricity