Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fpc Vs. Union Electric Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 03, 1965

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

36 entries 1 linked 35 unlinked
Show
  1. Hammer Vs. Dagenhart US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1918
  2. FPC v. Union
    Search
  3. Electric Co. - 381 U.S. 90 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. Union
    Search
  4. Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965) Federal Power Commission v. Union
    Search
  5. transmission of electric energy is fully subject to the commerce powers of Congress. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Attleboro
    Search
  6. Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities
    Search
  7. of the commerce power quite without regard to the federal control of tributary streams and navigation. See Labor Board v. Jones
    Search
  8. Labor Board v. Fruehauf
    Search
  9. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Labor
    Search
  10. U. S. 294 , 379 U. S. 301 -304. But see United States v. Appalachian
    Search
  11. Polish National Alliance v. Labor
    Search
  12. supervisory power to preserve or improve downstream navigability or water commerce generally. See United States v. Rio
    Search
  13. Phillips v. Guy
    Search
  14. prohibiting the erection of any obstruction to navigation, including those on nonnavigable feeders, United States v. Rio
    Search
  15. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Federal
    Search
  16. United States v. Appalachian
    Search
  17. the production of goods destined for interstate shipment was far less defined and understood at that time, see Hammer v. Dagenhart
    Search
  18. Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost
    Search
  19. in interstate commerce. This, of course, does not control the commerce powers of Congress. Cf. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor
    Search
  20. Polish Alliance v. Labor
    Search
  21. is not novel. A Court of Appeals expressly dealt with and rejected this construction of the Act in 1939, United States v. Appalachian
    Search
  22. jurisdictional limitation or a consistently held administrative interpretation. See American Trucking Assns. v. United
    Search
  23. provision both before and after its reenactment is an important factor in construing the statute. See, e.g., Helvering v. Reynolds
    Search
  24. Commissioner v. Estate
    Search
  25. the jurisdiction of Congress over such streams was upheld in the case of the United States v. Rio
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. Union
    Search
  27. Federal Power Commission v. Union
    Search
  28. of Congress. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Attleboro
    Search
  29. See Labor Board v. Jones
    Search
  30. See United States v. Rio
    Search
  31. United States v. Rio
    Search
  32. of Congress. Cf. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor
    Search
  33. See American Trucking Assns. v. United
    Search
  34. Helvering v. Reynolds
    Search
  35. of the United States v. Rio
    Search
  36. Katzenbach v. McClung
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial