to commandeer power contracts.” (footnotes omitted)). B. The Filed Rate Doctrine Applies to the Minimum Rates for Raw Milk Set under FMMOs pursuant to the AMAA. No Supreme Court or federal appellate court case has considered whether the filed rate doctrine applies to marketing orders setting the prices for raw milk under the AMAA. However, a number of trial courts (in addition to the district court here) have held it does. See, e.g., In re Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., 801 F.Supp.2d 705, 732-34 (E.D.Tenn.2011); In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig., 767 F.Supp.2d 880, 894-95 (N.D.Ill. 2011); Servais v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 246 Wis.2d 920, 631 N.W.2d 629, 633-35 (App. 2001); but see Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 253 F.Supp.2d 262, 276 (D.Conn.2003) (<HOLDING>). Originally, the filed rate doctrine arose in
holding that the discovery rule does not apply to  bill of review claims to set aside probate judgments holding that the doctrine does not apply in such circumstancesi holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that while filed rate doctrine does apply to challenges to milk pricing set under an fmmo it does not apply to a challenge to a defendants artificially inflated wholesale milk prices which are permitted to be in excess of the minimum rates set under the fmmos holding that filed rate doctrine did not apply because pharmaceutical companies do not file rates with any agency