Citation network
Jackson Vs. Metropolitan Edison Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 23, 1974
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
-
Jackson v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Edison Co. - 419 U.S. 345 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Jackson v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) Jackson v. MetropolitanSearch
-
to terminate service in a manner that the Commission found permissible under state law. Cf. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. IrvisSearch
-
U. S. 163 . Public Utilities Comm'n v. PollakSearch
-
Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
against which the Fourteenth Amendment offers no shield. Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1948). We have reiterated that distinction on more than one occasion since then. See, e.g., Evans v. AbneySearch
-
on the other, frequently admits of no easy answer. Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
that the regulation is extensive and detailed, as in the case of most public utilities, do so. Public Utilities Comm'n v. PollakSearch
-
not be immediately obvious, and detailed inquiry may be required in order to determine whether the test is met. Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
in the exercise by a private entity of powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State. See, e.g., Nixon v. CondonSearch
-
Girard Life Insurance Co. v. CitySearch
-
Baily v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
are state actors in all their actions. We decline the invitation for reasons stated long ago in Nebbia v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 291 U. S. 536 . See, e.g., Tyson & Brother v. BantonSearch
-
Page 419 U. S. 356 The case most heavily relied on by petitioner is Public Utilities Comm'n v. PollakSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. We also find absent in the instant case the symbiotic relationship presented in Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
that most other business enterprises are not. But this was likewise true of the appellant club in Moose Lodge No. 107 v. IrvisSearch
-
within the meaning of the Due Process Clause, Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
U. S. 564 (1972), and whether, if so, its deprivation was consistent with due process, see Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
U.S. 912 (1974). Compare Kadlec v. IllinoisSearch
-
Lucas v. WisconsinSearch
-
Electric Power Co., 466 F.2d 638 (CA7 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1114 (1973), with Palmer v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Gas of Ohio, Inc., 479 F.2d 153 (CA6 1973), modified in Turner v. ImpalaSearch
-
Motors, 503 F.2d 607 (CA6 1974). Cf. Ihrke v. NorthernSearch
-
enterprises held subject to this regulatory scheme are freight forwarding and storage companies ( Highway Freight Co. v. PublicSearch
-
A. 835 (1933)), real estate developers who, incident to their business, provide water services ( Sayre Land Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Utility Comm'n, 21 D. & C.2d 469 (1959)), and individually owned taxicabs. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n v. IsraelSearch
-
Pa. 400, 52 A.2d 317 (1947). In Philadelphia Rural Transit Co. v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Highway Express Lines, Inc. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Pottsville Union Traction Co. v. PublicSearch
-
than the maintenance of schools, yet we stated in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
As in Moose Lodge No. 107 v. IrvisSearch
-
In Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
Id. at 365 U. S. 722 -726. See generally Moose Lodge No. 107 v. IrvisSearch
-
same degree of state scrutiny and approval, whether explicit or implicit, that was present in Public Utilities Comm'n v. PollakSearch
-
lend its weight and authority to facilitate the enforcement of respondent's published procedures. Cf. Adickes v. S.HSearch
-
Railway Employes' Dept v. HansonSearch
-
a significant departure from our previous treatment of state action issues. Mr. Justice Brandeis, in Liggett Co. v. LeeSearch
-
See Washington Gas Light Co. v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial