# Tennessee Valley Authority v. Tennessee Electric Power Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 1937 · 90 F.2d 885

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638635

## Case

- **Full name:** TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Et Al. v. TENNESSEE ELECTRIC POWER CO. Etc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 14, 1937
- **Citations:** 90 F.2d 885; 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3981
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moorman
- **Judges:** Moorman, Simons, and Allen, Circuit Judges
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638635

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the TVA statute does not prohibit venue in the Eastern District of Tennessee

## Opinion text

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree to the setting aside of the injunction, not on the grounds stated in the opinion or concurrence, but for the reason *896 that in my opinion the bill does not state a case for judicial decision. The suit is an attack on the aims and purposes of the Tennessee Valley Authority as expressed in its “power program.” Its purpose is to obtain a decree invalidating the program, not as an act or acts done or about to be done, but in its plans and purposes. This tenders an abstract issue only. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 , 56 S.Ct. 466 , 80 L.Ed. 688 , holds that it is not a justiciable question. I find none in the bill. To spell one out from one or another of its allegations of fact would make it defective for joinder of parties having interests too widely variant. I am of opinion, therefore, that the bill should be dismissed, and I dissent from the holding that it should not

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638635. Public record. Not legal advice.