Filed Rate Doctrine

149 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Abels v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  678 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2009-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the filed rate doctrine and primary agency jurisdiction do not bar the plaintiffs' claims, and that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and unconscionability.
• Atlantis Express, Inc. v. Standard Transp. Servs., Inc.
  955 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires referral of freight undercharge disputes involving contract carriage, broker liability, and rate reasonableness to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
• In re Carolina Motor Express, Inc. v. Delaware Valley Shippers
  949 F.2d 107· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a shipper may not raise 'unreasonable rate' as a defense in an undercharge action, but disagreed with the majority's application of Maislin to disallow the 'unreasonable practice' defense.
• Associated GAS Distribs. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  898 F.2d 809· D.C. Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 8×
• Carriers Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Anderson
  881 F.2d 475· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not err in ruling that retroactive application of a "shipper load and count" notation requirement to impose higher tariff rates was unreasonable in these specific cases.
• INF, Ltd. v. Spectro Alloys Corp.
  881 F.2d 546· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in strictly adhering to the filed rate doctrine and disregarding the ICC's determination that collecting undercharges would be an unreasonable practice.
• Staff Builders Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  879 F.2d 1484· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over Staff Builders, a private employer contracting with government agencies, because the agencies' control over employment terms was not sufficiently intrusive to make Staff Builders a state actor or to preclude meaningful coll
• Iowa Power & Light Co. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  712 F.2d 1292· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The Interstate Commerce Commission has the authority to allow an incorrectly rejected tariff to take effect retroactively to correct its prior error, and this action was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Overland Express, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  996 F.2d 356· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's order declaring a carrier's rates void due to a lapsed power of attorney was an impermissible retroactive tariff rejection that violated the filed rate doctrine.
• Shelithea Hallums v. Infinity Ins. Co.
  945 F.3d 1144· 11th Cir.· 2019-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an insurer's duty to defend arises when a complaint alleges facts potentially within policy coverage, even if a federal statute like the Graves Amendment provides a defense to liability, thus rendering the insurance endorsement not illusory.
• Allnet Commc'n Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Exch. Carrier Ass'n, Inc.
  965 F.2d 1118· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has primary jurisdiction over the dispute concerning access charges and tariff validity, warranting dismissal of the suit.
• James G. Duffy for Canny Trucking Co., Inc. v. BMC Indus., Inc.
  938 F.2d 353· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court has discretion to stay a motor freight undercharge suit and refer the issue of the reasonableness of the filed tariff rate to the ICC, particularly when the carrier delayed billing, impacting the shipper's ability to seek reparations.
• Am. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  912 F.2d 1496· D.C. Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Commission's rejection of demands to intervene under § 5 of the Natural Gas Act to modify uneconomic take-or-pay contracts, finding the Commission correctly determined it lacked authority over nonjurisdictional contracts and that § 5 intervention was not su
• Duke Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  864 F.2d 823· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) properly interpreted interconnection agreements, finding that Account 407 costs were not recoverable, and that FERC properly retained jurisdiction to enforce filed rate schedules despite an arbitration clause.
• S. Union Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  857 F.2d 812· D.C. Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) erroneously determined that a state court judgment for negligent misrepresentation was not controlled by the Arkla decision, and that the damages awarded effectively constituted an impermissible retroactive rate
• The Jupiter Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  424 F.2d 783· D.C. Cir.· 1969-10-10 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Federal Power Commission's orders, holding that Jupiter was obligated to pay the filed rate without set-off and that the enforcement order was a valid exercise of discretion. The jurisdictional question regarding condensate transport rates was deemed not ri
• Kingman Water Co. v. United States
  253 F.2d 588· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a public utility cannot recover money paid by the Government for water services if the charges were based on rates not properly filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission, and any ambiguity in filed rates is resolved against the utility.
• Sec. Servs., Inc. v. K Mart Corp.
  996 F.2d 1516· 3d Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 5×
  A carrier's tariff is void if it fails to maintain an effective power of attorney or concurrence for a referenced governing tariff, precluding recovery of undercharges.
• Milne Truck Lines, Inc. v. Makita U.S.A., Inc.
  970 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while the filed rate doctrine bars common law counterclaims for negligence or fraud related to tariff filing, a shipper may assert the unreasonableness of a filed rate as a defense, requiring referral to the ICC for initial determination. The court also found
• W. Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Am. Indus., Inc.
  893 F.2d 229· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the ICC's ruling that the collection of undercharges was an unreasonable practice was a final, appealable order, and the plaintiff's failure to appeal it meant the district court should have granted summary judgment for the defendant.
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Pensacola
  936 F. Supp. 885· N.D. Fla.· 1995-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to add new contract claims and defendants, finding the proposed claims were not futile. The court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of prior dismissals.
• EF Operating Corp. v. Am. Bldgs.
  993 F.2d 1046· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-10 ·cited 4×
• Vedder J. White for Lyons Transp. Lines, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  989 F.2d 643· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's MC-208 Rules, which allowed the Commission to review and preclude claims deemed facially invalid, were an impermissible exercise of adjudicatory power exceeding its statutory authority.
• RTC Transp., Inc. v. Conagra Poultry Co.
  971 F.2d 368· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 4×
  A shipper can defend against an undercharge claim by arguing the filed rate is unreasonable, and this issue should be referred to the ICC for determination if properly preserved.
• Advance United Expressways, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  965 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that shippers may assert rate unreasonableness as a defense in undercharge actions and that district courts should refer such issues, along with tariff applicability, to the ICC under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
• Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  958 F.2d 429· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reasonably exercised its authority under section 4(d) of the Natural Gas Act to allow an out-of-cycle purchase gas adjustment rate increase to be effective on the date requested by the pipeline, even though it wa
• DELTA Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
  936 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the summary judgment for underpayments based on filed rates but directed the district court to impound payments pending the ICC's determination of rate reasonableness, given the carrier's bankruptcy.
• W. Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  912 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 4×
  An unreasonable practices defense cannot be asserted to prevent the application of the filed rate doctrine in an action to collect motor common carrier undercharges.
• The City OF Seattle v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  883 F.2d 1084· D.C. Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) had the authority to prospectively adjust annual charges for the use of federal lands under the Federal Power Act, it could not retroactively increase those charges without explicit statutory authority or n
• Mobil Exploration & Producing N. Am., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  881 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that FERC's one-year filing deadline for successor certificates and the 90-day waiver period are affirmed, but the refund requirement for rate increases collected before filing is vacated due to inadequate notice.
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  866 F.2d 477· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Transco's petition for review of FERC's approval of a settlement's escrow provision was not ripe for judicial review because Transco failed to demonstrate irreparable injury absent immediate intervention.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. THE Council OF the City OF NEW Orleans
  850 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the utility's claims, affirming the principle that federal courts should defer to state regulatory processes in complex utility rate matters.
• Grace Petroleum Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  815 F.2d 589· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority by denying a small producer the ability to collect a higher rollover contract price for natural gas delivered during the period between the expiration of an old contract and
• Roco Worldwide, Inc. v. Constellation Navigation
  660 F.2d 992· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 4×
• Borough OF Ellwood City v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  583 F.2d 642· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission had the discretion to excuse past failures to file rate schedules, even when a prior filing existed, and that the filed rate doctrine did not mandate refunds in this case.
• Lynchburg Traffic Bureau (Corp.) v. Smith's Transfer Corp. of Staunton
  309 F.2d 678· 4th Cir.· 1962-11-05 ·cited 4×
  A shipper cannot challenge the reasonableness of past freight charges made in accordance with applicable tariffs duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
• United States v. Davidson Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.
  259 F.2d 802· D.C. Cir.· 1958-04-24 ·cited 4×
  A shipper by motor carrier retains a common-law right to sue for unreasonable charges, and a court must refer the issue of reasonableness to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
• Whitaker v. Frito-Lay Inc. (In Re Olympia Holding Corp.)
  160 B.R. 185· M.D. Fla.· 1993-10-28 ·cited 3×
  A bankruptcy trustee for a defunct motor carrier sought to collect alleged freight undercharges from former customers by challenging the legality of the carrier's filed tariff rates containing shipper account codes. The court held that the trustee lacked standing to challenge the
• In re Columbia GAS Sys. Inc. v. Columbia GAS Sys. Inc.
  997 F.2d 1039· 3d Cir.· 1993-07-06 ·cited 3×
  The court's majority opinion, which the concurring judge disagrees with, applied trust law and the lowest intermediate balance test to limit the amount of refunds Columbia could pass through to its customers.
• Union Pac. R.R. Co. & its Lessors v. Nev. Power Co.
  950 F.2d 1429· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the ICC's maximum rate remained effective and the carrier could not ignore it.
• Morales v. Attorneys'title Ins. Fund, Inc.
  983 F. Supp. 1418· S.D. Fla.· 1997-07-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the filed rate doctrine bars the plaintiffs' claims under RESPA and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because these claims challenge rates established by a comprehensive state regulatory scheme.
• In re Olympia Holding Corp. v. Power Brake Supply, Inc.
  68 F.3d 1304· 11th Cir.· 1995-11-15 ·cited 2×
  A bankruptcy trustee sought to recover undercharge claims (the difference between filed and negotiated rates) from a shipper, arguing that the Negotiated Rates Act of 1993's small-business exemption violated bankruptcy code sections 363(i) and 541(c)(1). The Eleventh Circuit affi
• MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Best Tel. Co., Inc.
  898 F. Supp. 868· S.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the filed tariff doctrine precludes the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim, but a material issue of fact exists regarding the amount owed.
• Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  966 F.2d 1506· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reasonably construed a settlement agreement as not adopting the specific take-or-pay cost allocation methodology previously found to violate the filed rate doctrine.
• Natural GAS Clearinghouse v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  965 F.2d 1066· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that FERC has the authority to impose retroactive surcharges to correct its own legal errors, and that the open-access shippers had adequate notice of the potential for such a surcharge, thus not violating the filed rate doctrine.
• DELTA Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Appco Paper & Plastics Corp.
  931 F.2d 5· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a negotiated rate does not justify deviation from the filed tariff schedule, and undercharges are collectible without allowing defenses not timely raised.
• Imperial Colliery Co. v. OXY USA Inc.
  912 F.2d 696· 4th Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the lease required royalties based on market value, not contract proceeds, and that the lease terminated when production ceased to be profitable for the entire lease, not just individual wells.
• ORR v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  912 F.2d 119· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the ICC's Negotiated Rates doctrine, which allowed carriers to collect undercharges based on filed rates when lower rates were negotiated, was inconsistent with the Interstate Commerce Act. Therefore, the district court's adoption of the ICC's determination an
• La. Land & Exploration Co. v. Amoco Prod. Co.
  878 F.2d 852· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the filed rate doctrine creates a contract defense available to Amoco as a solidary obligor, barring LL&E's suit.
• Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  874 F.2d 834· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission erred in ordering refunds because Williston's effective tariff, approved by the Commission, clearly stated in a footnote that the rates at issue did not include purchased gas adjustment surcharges.