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. Cumberland Public Service Co.

• 1949 • 338 U.S. 451 • Vinson Court
In the United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co., 1949, the Supreme Court examined whether a company that produced and sold natural gas was subject to federal regulation under the Natural Gas Act of 1938. The Cumberland Public Service Company argued it was not because it only operated within one state (Kentucky), while the government contended that since some of its gas came from interstate pipelines, it should be regulated federally. The court ruled in favor of Cumberland, stating that...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: 214
338 U.S. 451
70 S. Ct. 280
94 L. Ed. 2d 251
1950 U.S. LEXIS 2603
Argued: Dec 12, 1949

United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co., 1949, the Supreme Court examined whether a company that produced and sold natural gas was subject to federal regulation under the Natural Gas Act of 1938. The Cumberland Public Service Company argued it was not because it only operated within one state (Kentucky), while the government contended that since some of its gas came from interstate pipelines, it should be regulated federally. The court ruled in favor of Cumberland, stating that just because a company receives goods from an interstate commerce source does not mean they are engaged in such commerce themselves. Therefore, as long as their business operations were confined within one state's boundaries and did not directly involve transporting or selling across state lines, they were exempt from federal jurisdiction under this act.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a public utility company to deduct from its gross income payments made in lieu of taxes, under an agreement with a municipality, contradicts established tax law principles. The dissenting justices contended that these payments were not deductible because they did not constitute ordinary and necessary business expenses but rather voluntary contributions or capital investments. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "taxes" as including any compulsory payment imposed by government authority, arguing this broad definition could lead to potential abuses and inconsistencies in tax law application. Furthermore, they believed that allowing such deductions would unfairly advantage publicly regulated utilities over other businesses which cannot negotiate similar agreements with local governments.

Opinion written by Justice HLBlack
Decided: Jan 09, 1950
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