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

Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co. Et Al.

• 1937 • 304 U.S. 375 • Hughes Court
In the case of Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that the Federal Power Commission (FPC) had jurisdiction over wholesale rates for electricity sold by public utilities to other utility companies, even if those sales were made within a single state. The court held that such transactions constituted interstate commerce and thus fell under federal regulation. This decision was significant because it expanded federal power over energy markets,...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 Hughes Court
Term: 1937
Docket: 915
304 U.S. 375
58 S. Ct. 963
82 L. Ed. 1408
1938 U.S. LEXIS 1079
Argued: May 02, 1938

Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co. Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that the Federal Power Commission (FPC) had jurisdiction over wholesale rates for electricity sold by public utilities to other utility companies, even if those sales were made within a single state. The court held that such transactions constituted interstate commerce and thus fell under federal regulation. This decision was significant because it expanded federal power over energy markets, which previously had been largely regulated at the state level. It also clarified how far-reaching Congress's powers could be when regulating interstate commerce in relation to electric utilities.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co. et al., argued that the majority's interpretation of the Federal Water Power Act was too broad and overreached its intended scope. The dissent contended that Congress did not intend for the act to apply to all bodies of water, but rather only those which were navigable or directly affected interstate commerce. They believed this because historically, regulation of local utilities had been a matter left to individual states, not federal jurisdiction. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision that allowed for federal intervention into what they saw as state matters based on an overly expansive reading of congressional intent.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(2)
Decided: May 23, 1938
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