Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fpc Vs. Hope Nat. Gas Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 03, 1944

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

81 entries 81 unlinked
Show
  1. FPC v. Hope
    Search
  2. Nat. Gas Co. - 320 U.S. 591 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. Hope
    Search
  3. Nat. Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944) Federal Power Commission v. Hope
    Search
  4. theory as developed and applied in particular cases. P. 320 U. S. 605 . 7. United Railway Co. v. West
    Search
  5. writs of certiorari which we granted because of the public importance of the questions presented. City of Cleveland v. Hope
    Search
  6. R.(N.S.), p. 9. In determining the amount of accrued depletion and depreciation, the Commission, following Lindheimer v. Illinois
    Search
  7. Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  8. U.S. p. 315 U. S. 582 . Ratemaking is indeed but one species of price-fixing. Munn v. Illinois
    Search
  9. which is being regulated. But the fact that the value is reduced does not mean that the regulation is invalid. Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  10. Nebbia v. New
    Search
  11. Page 320 U. S. 602 We held in Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  12. it is the result reached, not the method employed, which is controlling. Cf. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad
    Search
  13. West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public
    Search
  14. West v. Chesapeake
    Search
  15. showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences. Cf. Railroad Commission v. Cumberland
    Search
  16. Lindheimer v. Illinois
    Search
  17. Railroad Commission v. Pacific
    Search
  18. costs of the business. These include service on the debt and dividends on the stock. Cf. Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman
    Search
  19. the enterprise, so as to maintain its credit and to attract capital. See Missouri ex rel. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Public
    Search
  20. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public
    Search
  21. Utilities Commission, 292 U. S. 290 , 292 U. S. 312 . Cf. Lindheimer v. Illinois
    Search
  22. of the supply is inevitable in the case of all natural gas companies. Moreover, this Court recognized in Lindheimer v. Illinois
    Search
  23. We cannot approve the contrary holding Page 320 U. S. 607 of United Railways Co. v. West
    Search
  24. has advanced here. And our conclusion is that Congress did not. We pointed out in Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central
    Search
  25. the field in which such cases as Missouri v. Page
    Search
  26. U. S. 610 Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U. S. 298 , and Public Utilities Commission v. Attleboro
    Search
  27. and kindred statutory provisions. Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United
    Search
  28. Id., p. 307 U. S. 130 . And see United States v. Los
    Search
  29. Shannahan v. United
    Search
  30. United States v. Los
    Search
  31. Together with No. 35, City of Cleveland v. Hope
    Search
  32. Id., 44 P.U.R.(N.S.), p. 40. And see Railroad Commission v. Cumberland
    Search
  33. Institutional Investors v. Chicago
    Search
  34. See Mr. Justice Brandeis (dissenting) in United Railways & Electric Co. v. West
    Search
  35. West Penn Power Co. v. Board
    Search
  36. to the Act as requiring the inclusion of a depletion allowance among operating expenses. See Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public
    Search
  37. Congressional acquiescence to date in the doctrine of Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  38. principle, and we wish to repeat that we have never acquiesced in it, and do not now. See Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  39. standards of due process and for taking private property for public use without just compensation. Wilson v. New
    Search
  40. statutory standards or had confiscated the property of the utility for public use. Cf. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  41. consumer by the time of the enactment Page 320 U. S. 622 of this Act. Cf. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad
    Search
  42. depart from the traditional concepts of fair value and earnings, it would have stated its intention plainly. Helvering v. Griffiths
    Search
  43. established earning power of a successful company and the probable cost of duplicating its services. Cf. A.T. & T. Co. v. United
    Search
  44. the final say under the Constitution lies with the judiciary, and not the legislature. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  45. Constitution may always be raised, Congressional acquiescence to date in the doctrine of Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  46. for judgment. It will little advance the public interest to substitute for the hodge-podge of the rule in Smyth v. Ames
    Search
  47. is irrelevant. That may be an appropriate attitude when state action is challenged as unconstitutional. Cf. Driscoll v. Edison
    Search
  48. formula should be overruled as in conflict with Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  49. I am able to discover, proposed its application to a natural gas case. On the other hand, dissenting in Pennsylvania v. West
    Search
  50. simply transferred the rate base method to the natural gas industry. It happened in Newark Natural Gas & Fuel Co. v. City
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial