Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (1924)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Term: 1923
Important Dates
Argued: April 17, 1923
Decided: June 2, 1924
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Pierce ButlerJoseph McKennaJames Clark McReynoldsEdward Terry SanfordGeorge SutherlandWilliam Howard TaftWillis Van Devanter
Dissenting
Louis Dembitz BrandeisOliver Wendell Holmes

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 2, 1924. The case was argued before the court on April 17, 1923.

In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the California Northern U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1920s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Taft Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - State or local government regulation, especially of business (cf. federal pre-emption of state court jurisdiction, federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation)
  • Petitioner: Electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: City, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit
  • Respondent state: California
  • Citation: 265 U.S. 403
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Howard Taft
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: James Clark McReynolds

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes