Citation network
General Motors Corp. Vs. Tracy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 18, 1997
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
-
U.S. 278 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus General Motors Corp. V. TracySearch
-
presumably pays more for gas purchased from out-of-state producers and marketers. See Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSearch
-
arrangements for gas sales and distribution directly to local consumers. See, e. g., Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
the Court have recognized the importance of not jeopardizing service to this market. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
The legitimate state pursuit of such interests is compatible with the Commerce Clause, Huron Portland Cement CO. V. DetroitSearch
-
invalidating Ohio's tax scheme on the LDCs' capacity to serve the captive market. See, e. g., Fulton Corp. V. FaulknerSearch
-
has evolved. For a half century Congress has been aware of this Court's conclusion in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line CO. V. PublicSearch
-
of favoritism to constitute discrimination transgressing constitutional commands. Associated Industries of Mo. V. LohmanSearch
-
Del Papa of Nevada, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, James S. Gilmore III of Virginia, and Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
the statutory term to exclude non- LDC gas sellers, such as producers and independent marketers, see Chrysler Corp. v. TracySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
it to utilities, which in turn provided local distribution to consumers. See, e. g., Associated Gas Distributors v. FERCSearch
-
to provide common carriage, however, when doing so would displace their own sales, see Associated Gas Distributors v. FERCSearch
-
that operate exclusively in one State and with rates and service regulated by the State. See ANR Pipeline Co. v. FERCSearch
-
B)(7) (Supp. 1990). In Chrysler Corp. v. TracySearch
-
Supreme Court, citing its decision the same day in Chrysler, rejected this argument. See General Motors Corp. v. TracySearch
-
Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 , 560-561 (1992). 287 On similar facts, we held in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSearch
-
see also Fulton Corp. v. FaulknerSearch
-
Bacchus Imports v. DiasSearch
-
III A The negative or dormant implication of the Commerce Clause prohibits state taxation, see, e. g., Quill Corp. v. NorthSearch
-
Dakota, 504 U. S. 298 , 312-313 (1992), or regulation, see, e. g., Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. NewSearch
-
Amerada Hess Corp. v. DirectorSearch
-
West v. KansasSearch
-
their borders, absent congressional prohibition of such state regulation. See, e. g., Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Public Util. Comm'n of Kan. v. LandonSearch
-
from regulating interstate transportation or sales for resale of natural gas. See, e. g., Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. KansasSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. WestSearch
-
U. S. 553 , 596600, reaffirmed on rehearing, 263 U. S. 350 (1923). See generally Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. CentralSearch
-
from federal regulation, even as the NGA authorized the Federal Power 8 In Arkansas Elec. Cooperative Corp. v. ArkansasSearch
-
id., at 390 (quoting Illinois Natural Gas CO. V. CentralSearch
-
see also Schneidewind V. ANRSearch
-
power of the States to regulate all in-state gas sales directly to consumers. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. PublicSearch
-
see also Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
for the states to continue with regulation where Congress has not expressly taken over. Cf. Prudential Ins. Co. v. BenjaminSearch
-
in the wake of a decision of this Court permitting the FPC to regulate intrastate gas transportation by LDC's, see FPC v. EastSearch
-
members of the public, without discrimination, throughout their fields of operations. See, e. g., Industrial Gas Co. v. PublicSearch
-
U. S. 641 , 647 (1994) (quoting Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
Pike v. BruceSearch
-
There is, however, no clear line between these two strands of analysis, Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. NewSearch
-
Kassel v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
out-of-state interests, where such laws undermined a compelling need for national uniformity in regulation. See Bibb v. NavajoSearch
-
Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
see also CTS Corp. v. DynamicsSearch
-
that interstate activities are not unjustly burdened by multistate taxation. See generally Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. JeffersonSearch
-
Mond, 336 U. S. 525 , 539 (1949). See also, e. g., Wyoming v. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial