Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fpc Vs. East Ohio Gas Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 09, 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

68 entries 2 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Missouri Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1909
  2. Public Utilities Comm'n Vs. Landon US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1919
  3. FPC v. East
    Search
  4. Ohio Gas Co. - 338 U.S. 464 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. East
    Search
  5. Ohio Gas Co., 338 U.S. 464 (1950) Federal Power Commission v. East
    Search
  6. As we held in Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  7. b) itself. As we pointed out in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public
    Search
  8. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public
    Search
  9. See also Public Utilities Comm'n of Ohio v. Page
    Search
  10. would decide today, form the measure of the gap which Congress intended to close by this Act. Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central
    Search
  11. Illinois Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498 , 314 U. S. 508 , and see Parker v. Motor
    Search
  12. interstate gas only after it was reduced in pressure and entered a local distribution system. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Landon
    Search
  13. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Attleboro
    Search
  14. Steam & Electric Co., 273 U. S. 83 , 273 U. S. 89 , and see East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax
    Search
  15. a company transporting interstate gas, and selling it for resale, wholly within one state. Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central
    Search
  16. would not preclude Page 338 U. S. 474 exercise of the Commission's function. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal
    Search
  17. were adequately set out by Mr. Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court, in American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United
    Search
  18. States, 299 U. S. 232 . See also Northwestern Electric Co. v. Federal
    Search
  19. rights of the states under the Tenth Amendment is foreclosed by the Court's holding in Northwestern Electric Co. v. Federal
    Search
  20. East Ohio Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  21. Colorado-Wyoming Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  22. Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central
    Search
  23. Illinois Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498 , 314 U. S. 503 -504. See also East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax
    Search
  24. that which we held to bring oil transportation within the coverage of the Interstate Commerce Act. Valvoline Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  25. Champlin Refining Co. v. United
    Search
  26. In both Public Utilities Comm'n v. Landon
    Search
  27. U. S. 236 , 249 U. S. 245 , and Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public
    Search
  28. state regulation because retail sales presented a problem of local, rather than national concern. In Missouri v. Kansas
    Search
  29. the Landon principle that states could regulate charges for service to local consumers. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Attleboro
    Search
  30. a company which, like East Ohio, transmitted its product (electricity) wholly within one state. In East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax
    Search
  31. the absence of federal legislation, regulate such a company as Illinois Gas or East Ohio. See Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central
    Search
  32. Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498 , 314 U. S. 504 , discussed in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public
    Search
  33. Service Comm'n, 332 U. S. 507 , 332 U. S. 512 . But compare H. P. Hood & Sons v. DuMond
    Search
  34. each state was able to regulate the ultimate price of natural gas distributed to its consumers. Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public
    Search
  35. Public Utilities Comm'n v. United
    Search
  36. Federal Power Comm'n v. Hope
    Search
  37. Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  38. Federal Power Comm'n v. Panhandle
    Search
  39. within current judicial decisions in the absence of evidence which makes such intention unmistakable. United States v. South-Eastern
    Search
  40. no effort to look for evidence of such an intention, and, had it searched, it would not have found it. Cf. Helvering v. Griffiths
    Search
  41. Parker v. Motor
    Search
  42. cases relating to regulation, but the peculiarly mechanistic formula employed principally in 1931 in East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax
    Search
  43. either by the then current decisions as to limitations of the Commerce Clause on state power, cf. United States v. South-Eastern
    Search
  44. wholesale and retail distribution less than half a year after the East Ohio tax decision. State Tax Comm'n v. Interstate
    Search
  45. as those of East Ohio. However, this pressure factor is one which we found immaterial in Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Federal
    Search
  46. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Comm'n
    Search
  47. not intrude. The former included interstate direct sales to local consumers, as exemplified in Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public
    Search
  48. service interstate to local distributing companies for resale, Page 338 U. S. 483 as held in Missouri v. Kansas
    Search
  49. Natural Gas Co., 265 U. S. 298 , reinforced by Public Utilities Comm'n v. Attleboro
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. East
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial