law. The concern about not getting underneath the commission's rates involved the justiciability of determining "reasonable rates," which the Supreme Court has continued to hold that courts must avoid as impermissible judicial rate-making. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Pub. Serv. Co., 341 U.S. 246, 251-52 (1951). ¶ 12. While we note that Keogh was decided when common carriers were restricted by federal legislation and that deregulation has since taken place, its dual concerns of avoiding discriminatory rates and of avoiding judicial rate-making have retained their importance in analyzing attacks on rates set by federal agencies and have caused the filed rate doctrine to be applied in many other contexts. See, e.g., AT&T v. Central Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S.
holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud 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 the filed rate doctrine applies to the communication acts filedtariff requirements precluding state law claims