Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

California v. Federal Power Commission Et Al.

• 1961 • 369 U.S. 482 • Warren Court
In the case of California v. Federal Power Commission et al., 1961, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not the Federal Power Commission (FPC) had jurisdiction over sales for resale of natural gas produced in federal offshore areas. The State of California argued that it should have regulatory control over these transactions instead. However, the court upheld a lower court's decision that such sales fell under FPC jurisdiction according to Section 1(b) of Natural Gas Act which gives FPC...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1961
Docket: 187
369 U.S. 482
82 S. Ct. 901
8 L. Ed. 2d 54
1962 U.S. LEXIS 2161
Argued: Mar 01, 1962

California v. Federal Power Commission Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of California v. Federal Power Commission et al., 1961, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not the Federal Power Commission (FPC) had jurisdiction over sales for resale of natural gas produced in federal offshore areas. The State of California argued that it should have regulatory control over these transactions instead. However, the court upheld a lower court's decision that such sales fell under FPC jurisdiction according to Section 1(b) of Natural Gas Act which gives FPC authority over transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce. This ruling was significant as it clarified federal versus state powers concerning energy regulation and affirmed broad federal power in regulating interstate commerce.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Federal Power Commission, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 20 of the Natural Gas Act. He argued that this section does not give authority to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to regulate sales made directly by producers to industrial consumers in interstate commerce. According to him, such an interpretation would lead to a significant expansion of federal power at the expense of state regulatory authority over local distribution and direct industrial consumption which was never intended by Congress when it enacted this law. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is no evidence showing any serious problems arising from unregulated direct sales which could justify such a drastic change in policy or legal interpretation.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: Apr 30, 1962
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms