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

United States v. Cotton Valley Operators Committee Et Al.

1949 • 339 U.S. 940 • Vinson Court
In the United States v. Cotton Valley Operators Committee et al., 1949, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over natural gas production and distribution. The case arose when several independent producers of natural gas in Louisiana formed an association known as the Cotton Valley Operators Committee to collectively sell their product to interstate pipelines. The Federal Power Commission (FPC) argued that this collective action constituted a "sale for resale" under Section 1(b) of the Natural...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 Vinson Court
Term: 1949
Docket: 490
339 U.S. 940
70 S. Ct. 793
94 L. Ed. 2d 1356
1950 U.S. LEXIS 2598
Argued: Apr 18, 1950

United States v. Cotton Valley Operators Committee Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Cotton Valley Operators Committee et al., 1949, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over natural gas production and distribution. The case arose when several independent producers of natural gas in Louisiana formed an association known as the Cotton Valley Operators Committee to collectively sell their product to interstate pipelines. The Federal Power Commission (FPC) argued that this collective action constituted a "sale for resale" under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act, thus subjecting it to FPC regulation. However, these operators contended they were merely gathering and delivering gas rather than selling it wholesale. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FPC, stating that such collective actions by independent producers did indeed constitute sales for resale within interstate commerce and therefore fell under federal jurisdiction according to Section 1(b). This decision clarified regulatory authority over certain aspects of natural gas production and distribution while reinforcing federal oversight on energy resources involved in interstate commerce.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the United States v. Cotton Valley Operators Committee et al., 1949, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of "sale" in Section 3(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was too broad and inconsistent with Congress' intent. The dissenting justices believed that a sale should only be considered as such if there is a transfer of title or property rights, which did not occur in this case where oil drillers were merely paid for their services. They also disagreed with applying FLSA to local businesses like small oil wells, arguing that doing so would overextend federal jurisdiction into areas traditionally regulated by states and could potentially disrupt local economies. Furthermore, they contended that even if these workers were covered under FLSA, they should still qualify for exemption under Section 13(a)(1), since their work involved management activities crucial to running an independent business enterprise.

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