duke
power
carolina
env
study
group
argued
march
decided
june
together
nuclear
regulatory
commission
et
al
carolina
environmental
study
group
et
also
appeal
act
act
dual
purpose
protecting
public
encouraging
development
nuclear
energy
industry
imposes
million
limitation
liability
nuclear
accidents
resulting
operation
federally
licensed
private
nuclear
power
plants
requires
indemnified
million
fund
established
act
waive
legal
defenses
event
substantial
nuclear
accident
provides
event
nuclear
accident
involving
damages
excess
amount
aggregate
liability
congress
take
whatever
action
deemed
necessary
appropriate
protect
public
consequences
disaster
magnitude
appellant
duke
power
duke
public
utility
constructing
nuclear
power
plants
north
south
carolina
appellant
nuclear
regulatory
commission
nrc
sued
appellees
environmental
organization
labor
union
number
individuals
live
near
plants
question
sought
declaration
act
unconstitutional
finding
inter
alia
immediate
adverse
effects
upon
appellees
resulting
operation
plants
included
thermal
pollution
lakes
vicinity
emission
radiation
appellees
environment
also
substantial
likelihood
duke
able
complete
construction
maintain
operation
plants
protection
provided
act
district
held
appellees
standing
challenge
act
constitutionality
claim
properly
adjudicated
went
hold
act
violated
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
amount
recovery
rationally
related
potential
losses
act
tends
encourage
irresponsibility
matters
safety
environmental
protection
quid
pro
quo
liability
limitation
act
also
offended
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
forcing
victims
nuclear
incidents
bear
burden
injury
whereas
society
whole
benefits
existence
development
nuclear
power
held
district
jurisdiction
appellees
complaint
nrc
ed
rather
jurisdictional
base
pleaded
complaint
fairly
read
raised
two
basic
challenges
act
derived
fifth
amendment
appellees
cause
action
nrc
directly
constitution
sufficiently
substantial
sustain
jurisdiction
question
whether
cause
action
generally
recognized
need
decided
record
pp
appellees
standing
challenge
act
constitutionality
several
immediate
adverse
effects
construction
plants
found
harm
appellees
sufficient
satisfy
injury
fact
prong
constitutional
requirement
standing
finding
causal
connection
act
construction
plants
satisfies
second
prong
constitutional
test
standing
exercise
remedial
powers
redress
claimed
injuries
pp
constitutional
challenges
act
ripe
adjudication
since
parties
adversely
affected
decision
defer
definitive
resolution
constitutional
validity
vel
non
act
extent
issues
ripeness
involve
least
part
existence
live
case
controversy
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
fact
appellees
sustain
immediate
injury
operation
disputed
power
plants
injury
redressed
relief
requested
satisfies
requirement
pp
act
violate
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
pp
record
supports
need
imposition
statutory
limit
liability
encourage
private
industry
participation
hence
bears
rational
relationship
congress
concern
stimulating
private
industry
involvement
production
nuclear
electric
energy
assuming
arguendo
million
fund
insure
full
recovery
conceivable
circumstances
follow
liability
limitation
therefore
irrational
violative
due
process
appraised
light
extremely
remote
possibility
accident
liability
exceed
statutory
limit
congress
commitment
take
whatever
action
deemed
necessary
appropriate
protect
public
consequences
disaster
proportions
congressional
decision
fix
million
ceiling
within
permissible
limits
violative
due
process
pp
district
finding
act
tends
encourage
irresponsibility
matters
safety
environmental
protection
withstand
careful
scrutiny
since
nothing
provision
undermines
alters
rigor
integrity
process
involved
review
applications
license
construct
operate
nuclear
power
plant
since
event
nuclear
accident
utility
probably
suffer
largest
damages
act
provides
reasonably
substitute
commonlaw
state
tort
law
remedies
replaces
nothing
required
due
process
clause
congressional
assurance
million
fund
recovery
accompanied
statutory
commitment
take
whatever
action
deemed
necessary
appropriate
protect
public
consequences
nuclear
accident
fair
reasonable
substitute
uncertain
recovery
damages
magnitude
utility
component
manufacturer
whose
resources
might
well
exhausted
early
stage
minimum
statutorily
mandated
waiver
defenses
establishes
threshold
right
injured
parties
compensation
without
proof
fault
eliminates
burden
delay
uncertainty
follow
need
litigate
question
liability
accident
pp
equal
protection
violation
since
general
rationality
act
liability
limitation
particularly
reference
congressional
purpose
encouraging
private
participation
exploitation
nuclear
energy
ample
justification
difference
treatment
injured
nuclear
accidents
whose
injuries
derived
causes
pp
act
withdraw
tucker
act
remedy
thus
appellees
challenge
compensation
clause
must
fail
question
whether
taking
claim
established
fifth
amendment
matter
appropriately
left
another
day
burger
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
powell
joined
stewart
filed
opinion
concurring
result
post
rehnquist
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
stevens
joined
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
steve
griffith
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
joseph
knotts
william
larry
porter
solicitor
general
mccree
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
assistant
attorney
general
babcock
deputy
solicitor
general
jones
harriet
shapiro
robert
kopp
thomas
wilson
jerome
nelson
stephen
eilperin
william
schultz
argued
cause
appellees
cases
brief
alan
morrison
george
daly
norman
smith
jonathan
fn
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
philip
kurland
william
steigman
american
hospital
assn
et
al
northcutt
ely
frederick
ritts
robert
pietrowski
american
public
power
assn
sutton
keany
association
bar
city
new
york
arthur
murphy
harvey
price
atomic
industrial
forum
harry
rissetto
hiestand
alvin
kalmanson
babcock
wilcox
raymond
falls
michael
tierney
combustion
engineering
cameron
macrae
leonard
trosten
harry
voigt
eugene
fidell
edison
electric
institute
william
wise
robert
weinberg
national
rural
electric
cooperative
assn
et
al
richard
whiting
william
kelly
nuclear
energy
liability
property
insurance
assn
et
al
ronald
zumbrun
john
findley
albert
ferri
donald
simpson
pacific
legal
foundation
ben
blackburn
wayne
elliott
southeastern
legal
foundation
william
brown
attorney
general
dennis
murchnicki
assistant
attorney
general
filed
brief
state
ohio
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
bronson
la
follette
attorney
general
wisconsin
patrick
walsh
assistant
attorney
general
eldon
kaul
assistant
attorney
general
minnesota
carl
valore
state
wisconsin
et
al
herbert
brown
gilbert
miller
lawrence
coe
lanpher
resources
agency
state
california
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
appeals
present
question
whether
congress
may
consistent
constitution
impose
limitation
liability
nuclear
accidents
resulting
operation
private
nuclear
power
plants
licensed
federal
government
congress
passed
atomic
energy
act
contemplated
development
nuclear
power
government
monopoly
see
act
ch
stat
within
decade
however
congress
concluded
national
interest
best
served
government
encouraged
private
sector
become
involved
development
atomic
energy
peaceful
purposes
program
federal
regulation
licensing
see
atomic
energy
act
act
ch
stat
amended
ed
supp
implemented
policy
decision
providing
licensing
private
construction
ownership
operation
commercial
nuclear
power
reactors
energy
production
strict
supervision
atomic
energy
commission
aec
see
power
reactor
development
electrical
workers
remanding
app
private
industry
responded
atomic
energy
act
development
experimental
power
plant
constructed
auspices
consortium
interested
companies
soon
became
apparent
profits
private
exploitation
atomic
energy
uncertain
accompanying
risks
substantial
see
green
nuclear
power
risk
liability
indemnity
rev
green
although
aec
offered
incentives
encourage
investment
remained
path
private
nuclear
power
industry
various
problems
risk
potentially
vast
liability
event
nuclear
accident
sizable
magnitude
major
obstacle
notwithstanding
comprehensive
testing
study
uniqueness
form
energy
production
made
impossible
totally
rule
risk
major
nuclear
accident
resulting
extensive
damage
private
industry
aec
confident
disaster
occur
uniqueness
nuclear
power
meant
possibility
remained
potential
liability
dwarfed
ability
industry
private
insurance
companies
absorb
risk
see
hearings
joint
committee
atomic
energy
government
indemnity
private
licensees
aec
contractors
reactor
hazards
thus
repeatedly
stressing
risk
major
nuclear
accident
extremely
remote
spokesmen
private
sector
informed
congress
forced
withdraw
field
liability
limited
appropriate
legislation
congress
responded
passing
act
stat
ed
supp
act
dual
purpose
protect
ing
public
encourag
ing
development
atomic
energy
industry
original
form
act
limited
aggregate
liability
single
nuclear
incident
million
plus
amount
liability
insurance
available
private
market
million
nuclear
industry
required
purchase
maximum
available
amount
privately
underwritten
public
liability
insurance
act
provided
damages
nuclear
disaster
exceeded
amount
private
insurance
coverage
federal
government
indemnify
licensee
persons
indemnified
amount
exceed
million
thus
actual
ceiling
liability
amount
private
insurance
coverage
plus
government
indemnification
obligation
totaled
million
since
enactment
act
twice
amended
first
occasion
eve
expiration
amendments
extended
basic
provisions
another
years
added
provision
effect
requiring
indemnified
act
waive
legal
defenses
event
substantial
nuclear
accident
provision
based
congressional
concern
state
tort
law
dealing
liability
nuclear
incidents
generally
unsettled
way
insuring
common
standard
responsibility
jurisdictions
strict
liability
needed
waiver
defenses
thought
preferable
approach
since
entailed
less
interference
state
tort
law
enactment
federal
statute
prescribing
strict
liability
see
congress
extended
act
coverage
continued
million
limitation
liability
however
new
provision
added
requiring
event
nuclear
incident
reactor
owners
contribute
million
toward
cost
compensating
victims
supp
since
liability
ceiling
remained
level
effect
deferred
premium
provision
reduce
federal
government
contribution
liability
pool
amendments
act
congress
also
explicitly
provided
event
nuclear
incident
involving
damages
excess
amount
aggregate
liability
congress
thoroughly
review
particular
incident
take
whatever
action
deemed
necessary
appropriate
protect
public
consequences
disaster
magnitude
supp
act
presently
stands
liability
event
nuclear
incident
causing
damages
million
spread
follows
million
paid
contributions
licensees
private
operating
nuclear
power
plants
million
come
private
insurance
maximum
available
remainder
million
borne
federal
government
appellant
duke
power
public
utility
constructing
one
nuclear
power
plant
north
carolina
one
south
carolina
duke
power
along
nrc
sued
appellees
two
organizations
carolina
environmental
study
group
catawba
central
labor
union
individuals
live
within
close
proximity
planned
facilities
action
commenced
sought
among
relief
declaration
act
unconstitutional
parties
engaged
extensive
discovery
district
held
evidentiary
hearing
questions
whether
issues
ripe
adjudication
whether
appellees
standing
challenge
constitutionality
act
determined
appellees
standing
claim
properly
adjudicated
district
went
hold
act
unconstitutional
two
respects
violated
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
allowed
injuries
occur
without
assuring
adequate
compensation
victims
act
offended
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
forcing
victims
nuclear
incidents
bear
burden
injury
whereas
society
whole
benefits
existence
development
nuclear
power
noted
probable
jurisdiction
appeals
reverse
ii
threshold
matter
must
address
question
whether
district
jurisdiction
appellees
claims
despite
fact
none
parties
raised
issue
district
consider
see
liberty
mutual
ins
wetzel
appellees
complaint
alleges
jurisdiction
ed
provides
original
jurisdiction
district
courts
civil
action
proceeding
arising
act
congress
regulating
commerce
protecting
trade
commerce
restraints
monopolies
reading
pleadings
however
indicates
appellees
claims
arise
act
statutory
language
interpreted
prior
decisions
see
peyton
railway
express
agency
specifically
read
complaint
appellees
making
two
basic
challenges
act
find
moorings
fifth
amendment
first
appellees
contend
due
process
clause
protects
arbitrary
governmental
action
adversely
affecting
property
rights
act
creates
source
underlying
injury
limits
recovery
therefor
constitutes
arbitrary
action
second
contending
event
nuclear
accident
property
taken
without
assurance
compensation
act
instrument
taking
since
record
without
power
plants
possibility
accident
implicit
complaint
also
assumption
exists
cause
action
directly
constitution
vindicate
appellees
federal
rights
suit
nrc
executive
agency
charged
enforcement
administration
allegedly
unconstitutional
statute
appellees
right
relief
thus
depends
interpretation
construction
act
instead
upon
construction
application
constitution
smith
kansas
city
title
trust
hence
exists
jurisdiction
hear
appellees
claims
must
derived
ed
general
statute
rather
jurisdictional
base
pleaded
purposes
determining
whether
jurisdiction
exists
resolve
appellees
claims
necessary
decide
whether
appellees
alleged
cause
action
nrc
based
directly
constitution
fact
cause
action
appellees
actually
recover
bell
hood
instead
test
whether
cause
action
alleged
patently
without
merit
justify
dismissal
want
jurisdiction
hagans
lavine
quoting
bell
hood
supra
emphasis
added
see
also
oneida
indian
nation
county
oneida
test
whether
right
claimed
insubstantial
implausible
foreclosed
prior
decisions
otherwise
completely
devoid
merit
involve
federal
controversy
light
prior
decisions
example
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
hagans
lavine
supra
well
general
admonition
federally
protected
rights
invaded
courts
alert
adjust
remedies
grant
necessary
relief
bell
hood
supra
conclude
appellees
allegations
sufficient
sustain
jurisdiction
question
whether
appellees
cause
action
constitution
one
generally
recognized
need
decided
question
directly
implicate
jurisdiction
see
bell
hood
supra
raised
briefed
addressed
oral
argument
noted
last
term
similar
context
questions
sort
resolved
inadequate
record
leaving
unresolved
bar
full
consideration
merits
see
mt
healthy
city
bd
educ
doyle
enough
present
purposes
claimed
cause
action
vindicate
appellees
constitutional
rights
sufficiently
substantial
colorable
sustain
jurisdiction
iii
district
judge
held
four
days
hearings
questions
standing
ripeness
factual
findings
form
basis
analysis
issues
essence
standing
inquiry
whether
parties
seeking
invoke
jurisdiction
alleged
personal
stake
outcome
controversy
assure
concrete
adverseness
sharpens
presentation
issues
upon
largely
depends
illumination
difficult
constitutional
questions
baker
carr
refined
subsequent
reformulation
requirement
personal
stake
come
understood
require
distinct
palpable
injury
plaintiff
warth
seldin
also
fairly
traceable
causal
connection
claimed
injury
challenged
conduct
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
see
also
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
linda
richard
application
constitutional
standards
factual
findings
district
persuades
us
art
iii
requisites
standing
satisfied
appellees
turn
first
consider
kinds
injuries
district
found
appellees
suffered
discerned
two
categories
effects
resulted
operation
nuclear
power
plants
potentially
dangerous
proximity
appellees
living
working
environment
immediate
effects
included
production
small
quantities
radiation
invade
air
water
sharp
increase
temperature
two
lakes
presently
used
recreational
purposes
resulting
use
lake
waters
produce
steam
cool
reactor
interference
normal
use
waters
catawba
river
threatened
reduction
property
values
land
neighboring
power
plants
objectively
reasonable
present
fear
apprehension
regarding
effect
increased
radioactivity
air
land
water
upon
appellees
property
genetic
effects
upon
descendants
continual
threat
accident
resulting
uncontrolled
release
large
even
small
quantities
radioactive
material
assurance
adequate
compensation
resultant
damage
supp
second
category
potential
effects
placed
damages
may
result
core
melt
major
accident
operation
reactor
purposes
present
inquiry
need
determine
whether
putative
injuries
identified
district
particularly
based
possibility
nuclear
accident
present
apprehension
generated
future
uncertainty
sufficiently
concrete
satisfy
constitutional
requirements
compare
littleton
scrap
see
also
conservation
society
southern
vermont
aec
civ
action
dc
apr
enough
several
immediate
adverse
effects
found
harm
appellees
certainly
environmental
aesthetic
consequences
thermal
pollution
two
lakes
vicinity
disputed
power
plants
type
harmful
effect
deemed
adequate
prior
cases
satisfy
injury
fact
standard
see
scrap
supra
cf
sierra
club
morton
emission
radiation
appellees
environment
also
seem
direct
present
injury
given
generalized
concern
exposure
radiation
apprehension
flowing
uncertainty
health
genetic
consequences
even
small
emissions
like
concededly
emitted
nuclear
power
plants
difficult
step
standing
inquiry
establishing
injuries
fairly
traced
challenged
action
defendant
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
supra
put
otherwise
exercise
remedial
powers
redress
claimed
injuries
district
discerned
casual
connection
act
appellees
challenged
unconstitutional
construction
nuclear
plants
appellees
view
threat
particularizing
causal
link
facts
instant
case
district
concluded
substantial
likelihood
duke
able
complete
construction
maintain
operation
mcguire
catawba
nuclear
plants
protection
provided
act
findings
accepted
likely
satisfy
second
prong
constitutional
test
standing
elaborated
simon
challenged
two
grounds
first
argued
evidence
presented
hearing
contrary
conclusion
reached
district
indicated
mcguire
catawba
nuclear
plants
completed
operated
without
act
limitation
liability
second
contended
act
essential
sense
cause
disputed
nuclear
power
plants
resultant
adverse
effects
since
act
passed
congress
may
well
chosen
pursue
nuclear
program
government
monopoly
reject
arguments
district
finding
substantial
likelihood
mcguire
catawba
nuclear
plants
neither
completed
operated
absent
act
rested
major
part
testimony
corporate
officials
joint
committee
atomic
energy
jcae
act
first
considered
second
renewal
discussed
hearings
industry
spokesmen
utilities
producers
various
component
parts
power
plants
expressed
categorical
unwillingness
participate
development
nuclear
power
absent
guarantees
limitation
liability
see
also
green
tenor
testimony
changed
slightly
large
utilities
producers
somewhat
equivocal
whether
failure
renew
entail
leaving
industry
smaller
producers
component
parts
architects
engineers
essential
building
reactors
generating
plants
considered
renewal
act
critical
variable
determining
continued
involvement
nuclear
power
duke
power
letter
committee
urging
extension
act
cited
recent
experiences
suppliers
contractors
requiring
inclusion
cancellation
clauses
contracts
take
effect
provisions
eliminated
report
jcae
discussing
need
renewal
act
stated
nuclear
power
plants
planning
design
phases
receive
construction
permits
thus
uncertainty
whether
plants
receive
protection
form
government
indemnity
reactor
manufacturers
already
requiring
escape
clauses
contracts
permit
cancellation
event
form
protection
unlimited
potential
liability
provided
action
required
soon
prevent
disruption
utility
plans
nuclear
power
second
attack
district
finding
causal
link
warrants
brief
attention
essentially
argument
understand
cause
injuries
appellees
claim
since
passed
government
undertaken
development
nuclear
power
injuries
likely
accrued
appellees
plants
privately
operated
ones
whatever
ultimate
accuracy
speculation
responsive
simple
proposition
private
power
companies
fact
operate
generating
plants
injuring
appellees
participation
occurred
enactment
implementation
act
nothing
prior
cases
requires
party
seeking
invoke
federal
jurisdiction
negate
kind
speculative
hypothetical
possibilities
suggested
order
demonstrate
likely
effectiveness
judicial
relief
contended
addition
proof
injury
causal
link
injury
challenged
conduct
appellees
must
demonstrate
connection
injuries
claim
constitutional
rights
asserted
nexus
requirement
said
find
origin
flast
cohen
general
question
taxpayer
standing
considered
nexus
demanded
federal
taxpayers
two
aspects
first
taxpayer
must
establish
logical
link
status
type
legislative
enactment
attacked
secondly
taxpayer
must
establish
nexus
status
precise
nature
constitutional
infringement
alleged
major
difficulty
argument
implicitly
assumes
nexus
requirement
formulated
context
taxpayer
suits
general
applicability
suits
types
brought
federal
courts
cases
cited
outside
context
taxpayer
suits
demanded
type
nexus
right
asserted
injury
alleged
aware
none
instead
schlesinger
reservists
comm
stop
war
explicitly
rejected
broad
compass
flast
nexus
requirement
looking
substantive
issues
flast
stated
appropriate
necessary
relation
taxpayer
standing
express
purpose
determining
whether
logical
nexus
taxpayer
status
asserted
claim
sought
adjudicated
step
appropriate
claim
citizen
standing
since
flast
nexus
test
applicable
taxing
spending
power
challenged
prior
cases
however
acknowledged
limits
class
persons
may
invoke
courts
decisional
remedial
powers
warth
seldin
derive
general
prudential
concerns
proper
properly
limited
role
courts
democratic
society
see
also
schlesinger
reservists
comm
stop
war
supra
thus
declined
grant
standing
harm
asserted
amounts
generalized
grievance
shared
large
number
citizens
substantially
equal
measure
see
richardson
supra
also
narrowly
limited
circumstances
one
party
given
standing
assert
legal
rights
another
ven
plaintiff
alleged
injury
sufficient
meet
case
controversy
requirement
held
plaintiff
generally
must
assert
legal
rights
interests
rest
claim
relief
legal
rights
interests
third
parties
warth
seldin
supra
see
also
raines
limitation
standing
arguably
suggests
connection
claimed
injury
right
asserted
bearing
resemblance
nexus
requirement
urged
upon
us
good
sufficient
reasons
prudential
limitation
standing
rights
third
parties
implicated
avoidance
adjudication
rights
may
wish
assert
assurance
effective
advocate
rights
issue
present
champion
see
singleton
wulff
however
find
reasons
satisfactory
predicate
applying
limitation
similar
nexus
requirement
cases
matter
course
party
champions
rights
injury
alleged
concrete
particularized
one
prevented
redressed
relief
requested
basic
practical
prudential
concerns
underlying
standing
doctrine
generally
satisfied
constitutional
requisites
met
see
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
conclude
appellees
standing
challenge
constitutionality
act
question
ripeness
constitutional
challenges
raised
appellees
need
long
detain
us
extent
issues
ripeness
involve
least
part
existence
live
case
controversy
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
conclusion
appellees
sustain
immediate
injury
operation
disputed
power
plants
injury
redressed
relief
requested
appear
satisfy
requirement
prudential
considerations
embodied
ripeness
doctrine
also
argue
strongly
prompt
resolution
claims
presented
although
true
nuclear
accident
yet
occurred
occurrence
eliminate
much
existing
scientific
uncertainty
surrounding
subject
view
significantly
advance
ability
deal
legal
issues
presented
aid
us
resolution
however
delayed
resolution
issues
foreclose
relief
present
injury
suffered
appellees
relief
forthcoming
prevail
various
challenges
act
similarly
delayed
resolution
frustrate
one
key
purposes
act
elimination
doubts
concerning
scope
private
liability
event
major
nuclear
accident
short
parties
adversely
affected
decision
defer
definitive
resolution
constitutional
validity
vel
non
act
since
persuaded
better
position
later
decide
question
hold
presently
ripe
adjudication
iv
district
held
act
contravened
due
process
clause
amount
recovery
rationally
related
potential
losses
act
tends
encourage
irresponsibility
matters
safety
environmental
protection
finally
quid
pro
quo
liability
limitations
equal
protection
violation
also
found
act
places
cost
nuclear
power
arbitrarily
chosen
segment
society
injured
nuclear
catastrophe
application
relevant
constitutional
principles
forces
conclusion
holdings
district
sustained
due
process
analysis
properly
begins
discussion
appropriate
standard
review
appellants
portraying
provision
legislative
balancing
economic
interests
urge
act
accorded
traditional
presumption
constitutionality
generally
accorded
economic
regulations
upheld
absent
proof
arbitrariness
irrationality
part
congress
see
ferguson
skrupa
usery
turner
elkhorn
mining
appellees
however
urge
elevated
standard
review
ground
interests
jeopardized
act
far
important
economic
due
process
cases
traditional
rationality
standard
invoked
brief
appellees
intermediate
standard
like
applied
cases
craig
boren
equal
protection
challenge
statute
requiring
males
older
females
order
purchase
beer
trust
new
york
new
jersey
contract
clause
challenge
repeal
statutory
covenant
providing
security
bondholders
thus
recommended
use
read
act
legislative
history
clear
congress
purpose
remove
economic
impediments
order
stimulate
private
development
electric
energy
nuclear
power
simultaneously
providing
public
compensation
event
catastrophic
nuclear
incident
see
provision
thus
emerges
classic
example
economic
regulation
legislative
effort
structure
accommodate
burdens
benefits
economic
life
usery
turner
elkhorn
mining
supra
well
established
legislative
acts
come
presumption
constitutionality
burden
one
complaining
due
process
violation
establish
legislature
acted
arbitrary
irrational
way
ibid
accommodation
struck
may
profound
consequences
contrary
appellees
suggestion
provides
reason
defer
congressional
judgment
unless
demonstrably
arbitrary
irrational
examined
light
standard
review
act
view
passes
constitutional
muster
record
us
fully
supports
need
imposition
statutory
limit
liability
encourage
private
industry
participation
hence
bears
rational
relationship
congress
concern
stimulating
involvement
private
enterprise
production
electric
energy
use
atomic
power
understand
appellees
district
different
view
rather
challenge
alleged
arbitrariness
particular
figure
million
statutory
ceiling
liability
district
aptly
summarized
position
amount
recovery
rationally
related
potential
losses
abundant
evidence
record
shows
although
major
catastrophe
particular
place
certain
may
extremely
likely
nevertheless
territory
plants
located
damage
life
property
future
generations
well
many
many
times
limit
law
places
liability
limitation
practical
matter
detract
public
protection
afforded
legislation
first
place
likelihood
accident
occurring
result
claims
exceeding
sum
financial
protection
required
governmental
indemnity
exceedingly
remote
albeit
theoretically
possible
perhaps
important
event
national
disaster
magnitude
obvious
congress
review
problem
take
appropriate
action
history
natural
disasters
texas
city
incident
bears
limitation
liability
serves
primarily
device
facilitating
congressional
review
situation
rather
ultimate
bar
relief
public
given
conclusion
general
limiting
liability
acceptable
method
congress
utilize
encouraging
private
development
electric
energy
atomic
power
candor
requires
acknowledgment
whatever
ceiling
figure
selected
necessity
arbitrary
sense
choice
figure
based
imponderables
like
issue
always
characterized
however
kind
arbitrariness
flaws
otherwise
constitutional
action
appraised
terms
extremely
remote
possibility
accident
liability
exceed
limitation
congress
statutory
commitment
take
whatever
action
deemed
necessary
appropriate
protect
public
consequences
disaster
supp
hold
congressional
decision
fix
million
ceiling
stage
private
development
production
electric
energy
nuclear
power
within
permissible
limits
violative
due
process
district
conclusion
act
tends
encourage
irresponsibility
part
builders
owners
nuclear
power
plants
simply
withstand
careful
scrutiny
recently
outlined
multitude
detailed
steps
involved
review
application
license
construct
operate
nuclear
power
plant
vermont
yankee
nuclear
power
nrdc
nothing
provision
undermines
alters
respect
rigor
integrity
process
moreover
event
nuclear
accident
utility
suffer
perhaps
largest
damages
obviously
compared
loss
human
life
injury
health
risk
financial
loss
possible
bankruptcy
utility
small
incentive
avoid
kind
irresponsible
cavalier
conduct
implicitly
attributed
licensees
district
remaining
due
process
objection
provision
fails
provide
injured
nuclear
accident
satisfactory
quid
pro
quo
rights
recovery
act
abrogates
initially
clear
due
process
clause
fact
requires
legislatively
enacted
compensation
scheme
either
duplicate
recovery
common
law
provide
reasonable
substitute
remedy
however
need
resolve
question
since
act
view
provide
reasonably
substitute
state
tort
law
remedies
replaces
cf
new
york
central
white
crowell
benson
legislative
history
provisions
accompanying
compensation
mechanism
reflects
congress
determination
reliance
state
tort
law
remedies
procedures
unsatisfactory
approach
assuring
public
compensation
nuclear
accidents
time
providing
necessary
incentives
private
development
energy
remarks
chairman
anders
nrc
joint
committee
atomic
energy
hearings
need
renewal
act
illustrative
concern
expectation
act
provide
efficient
certain
vehicle
assuring
compensation
unlikely
event
nuclear
incident
primary
defect
alternative
nonrenewal
act
however
failure
afford
public
either
secure
source
funds
firm
basis
legal
liability
respect
new
plants
theory
legal
limit
placed
liability
practical
matter
public
less
assured
obtaining
compensation
establishing
liability
depend
case
state
tort
law
procedures
might
might
provide
liability
let
alone
multiple
protections
embodied
present
assurance
prompt
equitable
compensation
nationally
applicable
protective
system
give
way
uncertainties
variations
potentially
lengthy
delays
recovery
emphasized
moreover
collecting
judgment
filing
lawsuit
counts
even
defenses
waived
state
law
defendant
theoretically
unlimited
liability
may
unable
pay
judgment
obtained
defendant
assets
exhausted
earlier
judgments
subsequent
claimants
left
uncollectable
awards
prospect
inequitable
distribution
produce
race
courthouse
door
contrast
present
system
assured
orderly
equitable
compensation
hearings
joint
committee
atomic
energy
disagree
view
congressional
assurance
million
fund
recovery
accompanied
express
statutory
commitment
take
whatever
action
deemed
necessary
appropriate
protect
public
consequences
nuclear
accident
supp
fair
reasonable
substitute
uncertain
recovery
damages
magnitude
utility
component
manufacturer
whose
resources
might
well
exhausted
early
stage
record
case
raises
serious
questions
ability
utility
component
manufacturer
satisfy
judgment
approaching
million
amount
guaranteed
act
persuaded
mandatory
waiver
defenses
required
act
benefit
potential
claimants
since
never
knowledge
case
arising
nuclear
incident
like
covered
act
discussion
standard
liability
state
courts
apply
necessarily
speculative
minimum
statutorily
mandated
waiver
defenses
establishes
threshold
right
injured
parties
compensation
without
proof
fault
eliminates
burden
delay
uncertainty
follow
need
litigate
question
liability
accident
even
strict
liability
routinely
applied
doctrine
subject
exceptions
acts
god
third
parties
two
factors
appellees
emphasized
district
course
arguing
risks
nuclear
accident
greater
generally
admitted
considerations
belie
suggestion
act
leaves
potential
victims
nuclear
disaster
disadvantageous
position
left
remedies
known
modern
times
either
speed
economy
appellees
remaining
objections
briefly
treated
procedures
act
provide
event
accident
potential
liability
exceeding
million
ceiling
limit
distributed
pending
approval
plan
distribution
taking
account
need
assure
compensation
possible
latent
injury
claims
may
discovered
later
time
supp
although
delay
might
follow
compliance
statutory
procedure
doubt
approach
resulting
routine
litigation
large
number
claims
caused
catastrophic
accident
moreover
statutory
scheme
insures
equitable
distribution
benefits
suffer
injury
immediate
latent
route
proverbial
race
courthouse
instead
determine
first
crack
diminishing
resources
tortfeasor
fairness
well
sacrificed
process
remaining
contention
recovery
uncertain
aggregate
rather
individualized
nature
liability
ceiling
thinly
disguised
version
contention
million
figure
inadequate
already
rejected
course
adjudicating
similar
challenge
workmen
compensation
act
innew
york
central
white
observed
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
violated
simply
injured
party
able
recover
much
act
enactment
entitled
moderate
compensation
cases
injury
certain
speedy
remedy
without
difficulty
expense
establishing
negligence
proving
amount
damages
logic
new
york
central
seem
apply
renewed
force
context
challenge
act
act
provides
reasonable
prompt
equitable
mechanism
compensating
victims
catastrophic
nuclear
incident
also
guarantees
level
net
compensation
generally
exceeding
recoverable
private
litigation
moreover
act
contains
explicit
congressional
commitment
take
action
aid
victims
nuclear
accident
event
million
ceiling
liability
exceeded
panoply
remedies
guarantees
least
reasonably
substitute
rights
replaced
act
nothing
required
due
process
clause
although
district
also
found
act
contravene
equal
protection
provision
included
within
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
appellees
relied
ground
since
equal
protection
arguments
largely
track
duplicate
made
support
due
process
claim
event
conclude
equal
protection
violation
general
rationality
act
liability
limitations
particularly
reference
important
congressional
purpose
encouraging
private
participation
exploitation
nuclear
energy
ample
justification
difference
treatment
injured
nuclear
accidents
whose
injuries
derived
causes
speculation
regarding
arrangements
might
used
spread
risk
liability
ways
different
act
course
pertinent
equal
protection
analysis
see
mourning
family
publications
service
accordingly
decision
district
reversed
cases
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
reversed
remanded
footnotes
nuclear
incident
defined
occurrence
within
causing
within
outside
bodily
injury
sickness
disease
death
loss
damage
property
loss
use
property
arising
resulting
radioactive
toxic
explosive
hazardous
properties
source
special
nuclear
material
term
person
indemnified
means
respect
nuclear
incident
occurring
within
person
indemnity
agreement
executed
person
may
liable
public
liability
terms
act
originally
passed
applicable
licenses
issued
august
august
stat
amended
waiver
provision
incorporated
indemnity
agreement
defenses
negligence
contributory
negligence
charitable
governmental
immunity
assumption
risk
waived
event
extraordinary
nuclear
occurrence
limited
degree
defenses
based
certain
short
state
statutes
limitations
stat
see
also
cfr
act
also
amended
provide
transfer
claims
arising
nuclear
incident
single
federal
district
finds
liability
may
exceed
liability
limitation
act
immediate
payments
injured
parties
limited
liability
limitation
approves
plan
distribution
insure
equitable
treatment
parties
ed
supp
nrc
empowered
amendments
choose
figure
million
range
set
assessment
million
fed
reg
number
reactors
increases
million
deferred
premium
yield
fund
exceeding
present
liability
ceiling
example
predicted
maximum
reactors
operating
see
executive
office
president
national
energy
plan
produce
million
addition
whatever
insurance
available
private
insurance
market
act
liability
ceiling
automatically
increases
level
equal
amount
primary
secondary
deferred
premium
insurance
coverage
amount
coverage
exceeds
million
figure
supp
appellees
expert
witness
insurance
testified
district
homeowners
unable
purchase
insurance
nuclear
catastrophes
nuclear
industry
essentially
absorbed
entire
capacity
private
insurance
markets
need
property
liability
insurance
app
complaint
also
sought
review
aec
decision
grant
construction
permit
one
plants
pendency
action
however
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
decided
aec
properly
issued
permits
carolina
environmental
study
group
app
accordingly
district
dismissed
counts
complaint
except
relating
act
constitutionality
jurisdiction
invoked
ed
provides
direct
appeal
decision
invalidating
act
congress
suit
agencies
officers
employees
parties
complaint
provides
relevant
part
since
act
provides
victims
nuclear
disaster
benefit
time
limiting
right
recover
losses
approximately
losses
operation
million
limitation
event
nuclear
disaster
deprive
persons
injured
disaster
property
rights
without
due
process
law
violation
fifth
amendment
constitution
app
justice
rehnquist
read
complaint
insofar
alleges
denial
due
process
stating
claim
duke
power
north
carolina
law
construction
complaint
question
constitutionality
act
emerge
anticipation
defense
appellees
claims
thus
support
federal
jurisdiction
complaint
rule
regardless
jurisdictional
statute
relied
upon
see
louisville
nashville
mottley
conclude
complaint
fairly
read
stating
claim
nrc
directly
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
see
supra
view
complaint
rule
poses
bar
assertion
jurisdiction
appellees
claim
due
process
clause
essential
ingredient
complaint
asserting
right
constitution
simply
claim
made
anticipation
defense
raised
action
origin
state
law
see
also
infra
previously
required
minimum
amount
controversy
suits
amendment
eliminated
jurisdictional
amount
requirement
actions
brought
agency
thereof
officer
employee
thereof
official
capacity
pub
stat
thus
action
least
nrc
seem
clearly
permitted
without
specification
amount
controversy
see
andrus
charlestone
stone
products
appellees
failure
assert
basis
jurisdiction
complaint
fatal
since
facts
alleged
sufficient
support
jurisdiction
see
justice
rehnquist
suggests
appellees
taking
claim
support
jurisdiction
instead
claim
adjudicated
claims
tucker
act
disagree
appellees
seeking
compensation
taking
claim
properly
brought
claims
requesting
declaratory
judgment
since
act
provide
advance
assurance
adequate
compensation
event
taking
unconstitutional
appellees
claim
tracks
quite
closely
petitioners
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
brought
well
declaratory
judgment
act
see
app
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
nos
declaratory
judgment
act
expand
jurisdiction
expands
scope
available
remedies
allows
individuals
threatened
taking
seek
declaration
constitutionality
disputed
governmental
action
potentially
uncompensable
damages
sustained
need
resolve
question
whether
duke
power
proper
party
since
jurisdiction
appellees
claims
nrc
established
duke
presence
absence
makes
material
difference
either
consideration
merits
controversy
authority
award
requested
relief
detailed
explanation
nature
consequences
core
melt
see
question
type
harm
may
amount
injury
fact
sufficient
lay
basis
standing
aesthetic
environmental
like
economic
important
ingredients
quality
life
society
sierra
club
morton
argued
district
findings
question
injury
fact
upon
rely
clearly
erroneous
accepted
predicate
standing
finding
clearly
erroneous
although
evidence
support
reviewing
entire
evidence
left
definite
firm
conviction
mistake
committed
gypsum
application
standard
factual
findings
district
persuade
us
accepted
recent
cases
required
showing
substantial
likelihood
relief
requested
redress
injury
claimed
satisfy
second
prong
constitutional
standing
requirement
see
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
quoting
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
mhdc
shown
injury
likely
redressed
favorable
decision
see
also
warth
seldin
situation
different
first
renewal
considered
see
see
generally
green
know
nuclear
power
recommendation
duke
proceed
even
absence
however
point
view
others
perceive
nuclear
power
question
whether
practical
undertaking
absence
act
already
advised
several
firms
existence
required
supplier
nuclear
program
exist
therefore
evaluate
extent
absence
caused
disappearance
suppliers
marketplace
arriving
recommendation
app
injury
possess
required
nexus
due
process
challenge
injury
result
nuclear
accident
causing
damages
excess
liability
limitation
provisions
act
linda
richard
nontaxpayer
suit
reference
made
flast
nexus
requirement
course
denying
appellant
standing
challenge
nonenforcement
texas
desertion
nonsupport
statute
upon
careful
reading
however
clear
standing
denied
absence
nexus
injury
asserted
constitutional
claim
instead
unlikelihood
relief
requested
redress
appellant
claimed
injury
case
thus
provides
qualitative
support
broader
application
flast
principles
appellants
appear
advocate
cf
scott
standing
functional
analysis
harv
rev
time
formulation
see
flast
cohen
harlan
dissenting
recently
see
richardson
powell
concurring
questions
whether
nexus
requirement
even
context
taxpayers
suits
constitutionally
mandated
instead
simply
prudential
limitation
justice
rehnquist
undertakes
sever
action
nrc
executing
indemnity
agreements
act
act
alleged
constitutional
infirmities
particularly
liability
limitation
provisions
careful
examination
statutory
mechanism
indicates
separation
simply
sustained
execution
indemnification
agreements
nrc
triggers
statutory
ceiling
liability
terms
applies
persons
indemnified
see
supp
thus
absent
execution
agreements
nrc
licensees
provisions
act
appellees
object
simply
come
play
fact
coupled
district
finding
provisions
substantial
likelihood
contemplated
plants
built
operated
sufficient
establish
justiciability
appellees
claim
commission
see
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
appellees
apparent
reliance
recent
decision
national
league
cities
usery
argue
act
encroaches
substantial
state
government
interests
augmented
standard
review
due
process
clause
warranted
nothing
national
league
cities
prior
due
process
cases
provides
support
claim
various
studies
considered
district
indicate
considerable
uncertainty
amount
damages
result
catastrophic
nuclear
accident
see
reactor
safety
study
published
nrc
suggested
chance
per
reactor
year
accident
causing
property
damage
approaching
million
minor
health
effects
contrast
odds
reduced
range
billion
per
reactor
year
level
damages
approached
billion
early
fatalities
early
illnesses
predicted
nrc
reactor
safety
study
assessment
accident
risks
commercial
nuclear
power
plants
thorough
criticism
reactor
safety
study
see
epa
reactor
safety
study
review
final
report
june
thinking
magnitude
protection
set
arbitrary
figure
seemed
practical
time
think
accident
happen
yet
recognize
happen
wanted
base
work
hearings
joint
committee
atomic
energy
possible
modification
extension
insurance
indemnity
act
order
proper
planning
nuclear
power
plants
continue
without
delay
remarks
holifield
emphasis
added
congress
conclusion
probabilities
nuclear
incident
much
lower
likely
consequences
much
less
severe
thought
previously
key
factor
decision
increase
million
liability
ceiling
past
congress
provided
emergency
assistance
victims
catastrophic
accidents
even
absence
prior
statutory
commitment
example
congress
passed
texas
city
explosion
relief
act
stat
provide
relief
victims
explosion
ammonium
nitrate
fertilizer
congress
took
action
despite
decision
dalehite
holding
free
liability
federal
tort
claims
act
damages
incurred
injuries
suffered
recently
congress
enacted
legislation
provide
relief
victims
flood
resulting
collapse
teton
dam
idaho
pub
stat
act
secretary
interior
authorized
provide
full
compensation
deaths
personal
injuries
property
damage
caused
failure
dam
ibid
act
course
significant
improvement
prior
relief
efforts
provides
advance
guarantee
recovery
million
plus
express
commitment
congress
take
whatever
steps
necessary
aid
victims
nuclear
incident
cases
clearly
established
person
property
vested
interest
rule
common
law
second
employers
liability
cases
quoting
munn
illinois
constitution
forbid
creation
new
rights
abolition
old
ones
recognized
common
law
attain
permissible
legislative
object
silver
silver
despite
fact
otherwise
settled
expectations
may
upset
thereby
usery
turner
elkhorn
mining
see
also
arizona
employers
liability
cases
indeed
statutes
limiting
liability
relatively
commonplace
consistently
enforced
courts
see
silver
silver
supra
automobile
guest
statute
providence
new
york
hill
mfg
limitation
vessel
owner
liability
indemnity
ins
north
america
pan
american
airways
supp
sdny
warsaw
convention
limitation
recovery
injuries
suffered
international
air
travel
cf
thomason
sanchez
federal
driver
act
reject
outset
appellees
contention
act
differs
statutes
limiting
liability
act
cause
tort
liability
limited
put
otherwise
argument
quid
pro
quo
provided
act
since
without
nuclear
power
plants
possibility
accidents
injuries
understand
argument
proceeds
premise
prior
enactment
act
appellees
right
cognizable
due
process
clause
free
nuclear
power
take
advantage
state
uncertainty
inhibited
private
development
nuclear
power
premise
accept
appellees
relevant
right
prior
enactment
act
utilize
existing
remedies
vindicate
particular
harm
visited
whatever
sources
act
passed
right
least
regard
nuclear
accidents
replaced
compensation
mechanism
statute
terms
substitution
pertinent
quid
pro
quo
inquiry
appellees
insist
due
process
clause
requires
see
rylands
fletcher
app
see
generally
prosser
law
torts
ed
cavers
improving
financial
protection
public
hazards
nuclear
power
harv
rev
see
supra
expert
testimony
district
indicated
duke
power
one
largest
utilities
country
expected
accumulate
million
damages
claims
without
reaching
point
insolvency
app
amount
even
coupled
amount
available
private
insurance
less
million
provided
act
moreover
liability
sufficient
magnitude
force
utility
component
manufacturer
bankruptcy
reorganization
recovery
likely
reduced
delayed
see
joint
committee
atomic
energy
issues
financial
protection
nuclear
activities
selected
materials
atomic
energy
indemnity
insurance
legislation
comm
print
see
prosser
supra
act
explicitly
provides
payments
aid
claimants
purpose
providing
immediate
assistance
following
nuclear
incident
unlike
normal
tort
recovery
situation
emergency
payments
made
prior
determination
injury
setting
damages
conditioned
execution
release
victim
ibid
appellees
also
contend
act
effects
unconstitutional
taking
event
catastrophic
nuclear
accident
property
destroyed
without
assurance
compensation
find
unnecessary
resolve
claim
accident
constitute
taking
term
construed
precedents
since
reading
act
withdraw
existing
tucker
act
remedy
see
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
appellees
concede
tucker
act
remedy
available
event
nuclear
disaster
constitutional
challenge
act
compensation
clause
must
fail
brief
appellees
question
whether
taking
claim
established
fifth
amendment
matter
appropriately
left
another
day
justice
stewart
concurring
result
difficulty
accept
proposition
federal
jurisdiction
ed
exists
least
respect
suit
nuclear
regulatory
commission
agency
responsible
administration
act
claim
federal
law
found
allegation
act
enforced
deprive
appellees
certain
property
rights
violation
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
one
property
rights
perhaps
sole
cognizable
one
right
recover
full
compensation
tort
injuries
act
impinges
right
limiting
recovery
major
accidents
never
accident
sheer
speculation
one
ever
occur
reason
think
present
justiciable
controversy
appellees
without
standing
initiate
litigation
issue
standing
relies
present
injuries
increased
water
temperatures
radiation
emissions
even
assuming
act
plant
exist
therefore
neither
effects
environment
believe
follows
appellees
standing
attack
constitutionality
act
apart
connection
loosest
sense
concept
relationship
injury
alleged
standing
purposes
injury
alleged
federal
jurisdiction
surely
plaintiff
standing
simply
challenge
successful
remove
injury
relied
standing
purposes
put
defendant
existence
surely
must
direct
relationship
plaintiff
federal
claim
injury
relied
standing
cf
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
scrap
linda
richard
interest
local
water
temperature
short
give
appellees
standing
bring
suit
ed
challenge
constitutionality
law
limiting
liability
unrelated
major
nuclear
accident
reasons
remand
cases
district
instructions
dismiss
complaint
justice
rehnquist
justice
stevens
joins
concurring
judgment
understand
willingness
reach
merits
case
thereby
remove
doubt
cast
important
federal
statute
however
ignores
established
limitations
district
jurisdiction
carefully
defined
statutes
cases
believe
preservation
limitations
long
run
important
jurisprudence
resolution
particular
case
controversy
however
important
reverse
judgment
district
instructions
dismiss
complaint
want
jurisdiction
cf
utilities
northwestern
public
service
giving
conclusory
allegations
appellees
complaint
liberal
possible
reading
purport
establish
two
grounds
declaratory
relief
requested
first
contend
act
deprives
property
without
due
process
law
irrationally
limits
tort
recovery
otherwise
available
north
carolina
courts
second
contend
act
works
unconstitutional
taking
property
public
use
without
compensation
purport
base
district
jurisdiction
upon
ed
covers
civil
action
proceeding
arising
act
congress
regulating
commerce
protecting
trade
commerce
restraints
monopolies
apparent
appellees
first
asserted
basis
relief
state
claim
arising
act
complaint
alleges
operation
two
power
plants
cause
immediate
injury
property
within
vicinity
app
district
explicitly
found
injuries
give
rise
immediate
right
action
redress
law
north
carolina
right
action
arises
soon
wrongful
act
created
injury
however
slight
plaintiff
supp
wdnc
citations
omitted
right
action
provided
state
federal
law
property
appellees
contend
act
deprives
without
due
process
thus
constitutionality
act
becomes
relevant
appellant
duke
power
invoke
act
defense
appellees
suit
recovery
north
carolina
right
action
long
established
mere
anticipation
possible
federal
defense
state
cause
action
sufficient
invoke
jurisdiction
district
courts
louisville
nashville
mottley
plaintiffs
sought
compel
specific
performance
contract
railroad
granted
free
passes
life
although
contract
predicated
upon
federal
law
plaintiffs
contended
jurisdiction
established
presence
act
congress
forbidding
railroads
issue
free
passes
held
district
jurisdiction
consider
whether
act
inapplicable
unconstitutional
settled
interpretation
words
arising
used
statute
conferring
jurisdiction
suit
arises
constitution
laws
plaintiff
statement
cause
action
shows
based
upon
laws
constitution
enough
plaintiff
alleges
anticipated
defense
cause
action
asserts
defense
invalidated
provision
constitution
although
allegations
show
likely
course
litigation
question
constitution
arise
show
suit
plaintiff
original
cause
action
arises
constitution
fact
appellees
seek
declaratory
relief
declaratory
judgment
act
ed
support
different
result
held
complaint
rule
applied
mottley
fully
applicable
cases
seeking
declaratory
relief
declaratory
judgment
act
merely
expands
remedies
available
district
courts
without
expanding
jurisdiction
turn
federal
courts
vast
current
litigation
indubitably
arising
state
law
sense
right
vindicated
suit
declaration
rights
brought
federal
courts
merely
anticipated
defense
derived
federal
law
skelly
oil
phillips
petroleum
see
also
phillips
petroleum
texaco
wright
miller
cooper
federal
practice
procedure
pp
appellees
contend
act
grants
personal
rights
may
vindicated
federal
proceeding
since
property
rights
assert
arise
north
carolina
law
district
jurisdiction
consider
whether
setting
act
congress
defense
rights
deny
due
process
law
fifth
amendment
indeed
even
contend
independent
statutory
source
jurisdiction
duke
ante
suggests
instead
complaint
claim
nuclear
regulatory
commission
joint
tortfeasor
north
carolina
law
administrator
unconstitutional
federal
statute
theory
complaint
alleges
existence
implied
right
action
fifth
amendment
obtain
relief
arbitrary
federal
statutes
hardly
said
theory
case
emerges
crystal
clarity
either
complaint
brief
appellees
importantly
allegation
complaint
nuclear
regulatory
commission
taken
take
unconstitutional
action
complaint
alleges
commission
granted
construction
permits
duke
enter
agreement
indemnify
duke
nuclear
incident
exceeding
amount
subject
maximum
liability
app
neither
actions
alleged
unconstitutional
gist
complaint
asserted
unconstitutionality
supp
limits
duke
liability
limitation
liability
separate
apart
indemnity
agreement
commission
authorized
execute
supp
commission
nothing
whatever
administration
limitation
liability
whatever
administration
statute
left
hands
district
ed
supp
district
course
party
suit
simply
said
allegations
make
actual
controversy
commission
commission
may
quite
interested
constitutionality
statute
hardly
sufficient
establish
justiciable
controversy
muskrat
appellees
may
damaged
duke
decision
construct
plants
challenged
action
defendant
commission
damage
fairly
traced
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
duke
decided
proceed
construction
despite
declaration
statute
unconstitutionality
nothing
commission
aid
appellees
prospect
effective
relief
defendant
depends
actions
third
party
justiciable
controversy
exists
defendant
warth
seldin
short
appellees
conceivable
controversy
duke
district
jurisdiction
ii
appellees
describe
second
aspect
complaint
central
issue
whether
circumstances
case
complete
destruction
appellees
property
nuclear
accident
occurring
one
duke
plants
taking
term
defined
fifth
amendment
brief
appellees
statement
makes
clear
appellees
claim
arises
act
fifth
amendment
jurisdiction
extends
actions
vindicating
rights
created
act
congress
compare
switchmen
national
mediation
board
general
committee
since
maintained
act
created
appellees
asserted
right
free
takings
public
use
without
compensation
follows
district
jurisdiction
may
predicated
upon
district
jurisdiction
consider
claims
taking
tucker
act
ed
amount
controversy
exceed
act
long
construed
authorizing
actions
money
judgments
suits
equitable
relief
richardson
morris
incontrovertibly
established
neither
claims
district
courts
jurisdiction
tucker
act
issue
sort
declaratory
relief
granted
compare
king
thus
record
establish
jurisdictional
basis
upon
district
grant
declaratory
relief
appellees
taking
claim
basis
district
jurisdiction
either
appellees
claims
judgment
reversed
cause
remanded
instructions
dismiss
complaint
want
jurisdiction
appellees
explicitly
abandoned
claim
based
upon
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
since
case
equal
protection
arguments
largely
duplicative
appellees
due
process
arguments
brief
appellees
asserts
decision
today
undermine
complaint
doctrine
conclusion
complaint
fairly
read
stating
claim
nrc
directly
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
ante
supposed
claim
commission
arises
federal
law
since
complaint
allege
district
find
north
carolina
law
provide
remedy
joint
tortfeasor
theory
case
need
decide
whether
jurisdiction
obtained
duke
power
ante
particularly
felicitous
conclusion
point
view
since
complaint
allege
member
plaintiff
class
claim
excess
duke
power
prerequisite
jurisdiction
zahn
international
paper
despite
assurances
conceivable
practical
effect
today
decision
erosion
complaint
doctrine
plaintiffs
mottley
joined
defendants
federal
agency
ephemeral
relation
statute
challenged
commission
statute
involved
district
according
today
decision
jurisdiction
consider
constitutionality
statute
even
though
judgment
binding
louisville
nashville
railroad
innumerable
federal
statutes
regulations
affect
daily
decisions
private
parties
undoubtedly
appreciate
sort
advisory
opinion
rendered
today
validity
provisions
encourage
hope
opinions
may
obtained
suing
appropriate
federal
agency
claim
verges
frivolous
appellees
challenge
construction
permits
rejected
carolina
environmental
study
group
app
true
remarks
ante
absent
execution
indemnity
agreements
nrc
licensees
provisions
act
appellees
object
simply
come
play
logical
connection
however
amount
allegation
commission
execution
indemnity
agreement
unconstitutional
federal
action
challenged
complaint
hypothetical
district
hypothetical
invocation
statute
event
hypothetical
nuclear
accident
entire
string
hypothetical
events
action
commission
alleged
unconstitutional
concludes
ante
although
appellees
contend
taking
claim
cognizable
ed
grants
jurisdiction
district
courts
suit
arises
constitution
cites
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
support
conclusion
claim
may
maintained
course
well
established
questions
jurisdiction
passed
prior
decisions
sub
silentio
never
considered
bound
subsequent
case
finally
brings
jurisdictional
issue
us
hagans
lavine
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
opinion
even
cite
statutory
basis
jurisdiction
much
less
consider
validity
conclude
embraces
taking
claim
makes
tucker
act
largely
superfluous
cf
testan
permit
district
courts
consider
claims
previously
litigated
claims
richardson
morris
significant
expansion
jurisdiction
district
courts
accomplished
without
benefit
arguments
briefing
justice
stevens
concurring
judgment
string
contingencies
supposedly
holds
litigation
together
delicate
told
act
financing
nuclear
power
plants
development
plants
private
parties
hence
present
injury
persons
appellees
asked
remedy
alleged
due
process
violation
may
possibly
occur
uncertain
time
future
may
possibly
injure
appellees
way
significant
connection
present
injury
remarkable
series
speculations
considered
sufficient
either
make
litigation
ripe
decision
establish
appellees
standing
even
remarkable
occurs
case
justice
rehnquist
demonstrates
federal
jurisdiction
first
place
opinion
serve
national
interest
removing
doubts
concerning
constitutionality
act
therefore
criticize
statesmanship
decision
provide
country
advisory
opinion
important
subject
nevertheless
view
proper
function
federal
structure
government
limited
statesmen
judges
necessary
resolve
constitutional
issue
adjudication
actual
case
controversy
duty
whenever
persuaded
reasons
expediency
engage
business
giving
legal
advice
chip
away
part
foundation
independence
strength
join
justice
rehnquist
opinion
concurring
judgment
respect
whether
appellees
claim
present
injury
sufficient
establish
standing
noted
sort
financing
essential
almost
projects
public
private
statutes
facilitate
may
essential
financing
abound
tax
statutes
statutes
prohibiting
fraudulent
securities
transactions
one
assume
however
mere
neighbors
standing
litigate
legality
utility
financing
cf
blue
chip
stamps
manor
drug
stores