Citation network
Fpc Vs. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 15, 1954
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
-
FPC v. NiagaraSearch
-
Mohawk Power Corp. - 347 U.S. 239 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. NiagaraSearch
-
Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (1954) Federal Power Commission v. NiagaraSearch
-
For further recognition of these water rights under state law, see Water Power & Control Commission v. NiagaraSearch
-
Niagara Falls Power Co. v. DuryeaSearch
-
state law, requires clear authorization. A classic example of such a clear authorization appears in United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FederalSearch
-
Court passed upon the basic question now before us when it came here in a different connection. In Henry Ford & Son v. LittleSearch
-
and the holder of state-recognized rights to use water from a navigable stream for irrigation purposes. United States v. GerlachSearch
-
U. S. 734 . See also, as to state-created water rights for power purposes, Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-HydroSearch
-
Pike Rapids Power Co. v. MinneapolisSearch
-
United States v. CentralSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Rank v. KrugSearch
-
Great Page 347 U. S. 256 Northern R. Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
Electric Co., 197 Wash. 627, 86 P.2d 208. In First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FederalSearch
-
for power purposes, as well as those for other proprietary uses. To any extent that statements in Alabama Power Co. v. GulfSearch
-
Falls Power Co., 3 F.P.C. 206, affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Niagara Falls Power Co. v. FederalSearch
-
rights are described by the Court of Appeals in 202 F.2d 191 at 194-197, 198-202. See also Niagara Falls Power Co. v. FederalSearch
-
Sweet v. CitySearch
-
owner in New York has a right to use the waters of an abutting stream as part of his estate. United Paper Board Co. v. IroquoisSearch
-
Waterford Electric Light, Heat & Power Co. v. NewSearch
-
International Paper Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 282 U. S. 408 . See also Van Etten v. CitySearch
-
of New York, 226 N.Y. 483, 124 N.E. 201, and People ex rel. Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Mfg. Co. v. SmithSearch
-
prior to the Federal Water Power Act, is recognized by the courts of that state. Hydraulic Power Co. of Niagara Falls v. PettiboneSearch
-
United States v. WillowSearch
-
United States v. AppalachianSearch
-
Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377 . See also United States v. KansasSearch
-
as distinguished from private proprietary rights to the use of such water for power and other purposes. United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
Chapman v. FederalSearch
-
or indirectly, for the use of the waters of a navigable stream. That has been settled at least since United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
being reimbursed by the United States, that is the price Niagara must pay for its federal license. See United States v. AppalachianSearch
-
Regents v. CarrollSearch
-
United States v. ChicagoSearch
-
United States v. CommodoreSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. NiagaraSearch
-
Federal Power Commission v. NiagaraSearch
-
Water Power & Control Commission v. NiagaraSearch
-
United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
In Henry Ford & Son v. LittleSearch
-
United States v. GerlachSearch
-
Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-HydroSearch
-
Northern R. Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
In First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FederalSearch
-
Alabama Power Co. v. GulfSearch
-
Niagara Falls Power Co. v. FederalSearch
-
United Paper Board Co. v. IroquoisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial