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

Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery Et Al.

• 1937 • 302 U.S. 300 • Hughes Court
In the case of Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Natural Gas Pipeline Company, reversing a decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that had held them liable for damages following an explosion on their property which resulted in two deaths and several injuries. The plaintiffs were employees working near a natural gas pipeline when it exploded due to internal corrosion, causing severe damage and loss of life. They sued...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: 230
302 U.S. 300
58 S. Ct. 199
82 L. Ed. 276
1937 U.S. LEXIS 1151
Argued: Nov 08, 1937

Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Natural Gas Pipeline Company, reversing a decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that had held them liable for damages following an explosion on their property which resulted in two deaths and several injuries. The plaintiffs were employees working near a natural gas pipeline when it exploded due to internal corrosion, causing severe damage and loss of life. They sued under Kansas law which allowed recovery if injury was caused by negligence or violation of safety regulations. The Supreme Court found that federal laws regulating interstate commerce preempted state law in this matter because Congress had enacted comprehensive legislation governing transportation and sale of natural gas across state lines - namely, The Natural Gas Act (NGA). Therefore, any claim against an entity like Natural Gas Pipeline Company must be based on violations under NGA rather than state laws as they argued there should not be dual regulation from both Federal Government and State Government over such matters related to interstate commerce.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Slattery case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an unwarranted intrusion into state affairs. The dissenters believed that it was not within the purview of federal courts to interfere with or overturn decisions made by state regulatory bodies, such as those concerning utility rates, unless there were clear violations of constitutional rights involved. They contended that no such violation had occurred in this case and thus saw no reason for federal intervention. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on states' abilities to regulate their own utilities if federal courts could so easily step in and override their decisions.

Opinion written by Justice HFStone
Decided: Dec 06, 1937
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