Citation network
Cities Service Co. Vs. Peerless Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 11, 1950
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
-
Cities Service Co. v. PeerlessSearch
-
Co. - 340 U.S. 179 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court Cities Service Co. v. PeerlessSearch
-
Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950) Cities Service Co. v. PeerlessSearch
-
of natural resources and to protect the correlative rights of owners through ratable taking, Champlin Refining Co. v. CorporationSearch
-
Commission, 286 U. S. 210 (1932), or to protect the economy of the state. Railroad Commission v. RowanSearch
-
S. 186 control over production even though the uses to which property may profitably be put are restricted. Walls v. MidlandSearch
-
regulation, a price-fixing order is lawful if substantially related to a legitimate end sought to be attained. Nebbia v. NewSearch
-
But due regard for state legislative functions has long required that this power be treated as not exclusive. Cooley v. PortSearch
-
federal authority has not been exercised, even though the regulation has some impact on interstate commerce. Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Milk Control Board v. EisenbergSearch
-
South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
into an affirmation that the national interest lies in complete freedom from regulation. South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
Bros., supra. Compare Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
not contradict the established connection between the orders and a statewide interest in conservation. Cf. Thompson v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Federal Power Comm'n v. HopeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
interest so harmed that the state price-fixing orders here employed fall within the ban of the Commerce Clause. Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Milk Control Board of Pennsylvania v. EisenbergSearch
-
whether Oklahoma's unilateral efforts to conserve gas will be fully effective. See South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cities Service Co. v. PeerlessSearch
-
Champlin Refining Co. v. CorporationSearch
-
Railroad Commission v. RowanSearch
-
Walls v. MidlandSearch
-
Nebbia v. NewSearch
-
Cooley v. PortSearch
-
Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Compare Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
Cf. Thompson v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
of the Commerce Clause. Parker v. BrownSearch
-
See South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial