Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

WisconsIn Vs. Fpc

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 20, 1963

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

37 entries 1 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Phillips Petroleum Co. Vs. Wisconsin US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1954
  2. U.S. 294 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. FPC
    Search
  3. U.S. 294 (1963) Wisconsin v. Federal
    Search
  4. the opinion of the Court. Almost nine years have passed since this Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin
    Search
  5. to file an increase under a contract which, in effect, authorized him to do so at any time. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis
    Search
  6. b) of the Act in order to preserve a point for judicial review. See, e.g., Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal
    Search
  7. that has gone this far than in the case of a decision whether or not to initiate an inquiry. See Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  8. need be followed by the Commission in considering the justness and reasonableness of rates, Federal Power Comm'n v. Natural
    Search
  9. Federal Power Comm'n v. Hope
    Search
  10. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  11. We held in Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  12. it is true, do not provide as much protection as the elimination of unreasonable rates, see Federal Power Comm'n v. Tennessee
    Search
  13. Together with No. 73, California et al. v. Federal
    Search
  14. Power Commission et al., and No. 74, Long Island Lighting Co. et al. v. Federal
    Search
  15. We do not interpret the decision of the Court of Appeals in Detroit v. Federal
    Search
  16. U.S.App.D.C. at 379, 303 F.2d at 390. See also Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal
    Search
  17. See the discussion in the opinions of Mr. Justice Jackson in Federal Power Comm'n v. Hope
    Search
  18. Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591 , 320 U. S. 628 -660, and in Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  19. s position that it had no jurisdiction over the production of gas, this Court decided Phillips Petroleum Corp. v. Wisconsin
    Search
  20. high price sales without providing for any conditions. This action was reversed in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public
    Search
  21. P.C. at 1009. I regret that the Court has chosen this occasion to stand on technicality, compare Federal Trade Comm'n v. Henry
    Search
  22. for CATCO gas after our remand in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public
    Search
  23. next, many of the consumers entitled to refunds cannot be found, etc. See Federal Power Comm'n v. Tennessee
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. FPC
    Search
  25. Wisconsin v. Federal
    Search
  26. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis
    Search
  27. Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. Federal
    Search
  28. See Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  29. Federal Power Comm'n v. Natural
    Search
  30. Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  31. Federal Power Comm'n v. Tennessee
    Search
  32. Detroit v. Federal
    Search
  33. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal
    Search
  34. Phillips Petroleum Corp. v. Wisconsin
    Search
  35. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public
    Search
  36. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Henry
    Search
  37. See Federal Power Comm'n v. Tennessee
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial