Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
- Decided
- December 23, 1974
- Docket
- 73-5845
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,489 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the fact that a business is subject to government regulation does not by itself convert the business's action into that of the government — Jesse Brown, Rev., On Behalf Of Himself And All Members Of The Uptown Coalition For Tobacco Control And Health v. Philip Morris Inc. (2001)
- holding that provision of utility service is not a power reserved exclusively to the state — Kenneth D. Lansing v. City of Memphis Memphis Park Commission, Memphis in May International Festival, Inc. (2000)
- holding that state regulation, even if “extensive and detailed,” was insufficient to convert a utility’s actions into those of the state — Dorothy Frazier v. The Board of Trustees of Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (1985)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
MR. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Metropolitan Edison Co. is a privately owned and operated Pennsylvania corporation which holds a certificate of public convenience issued by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission empowering it to deliver electricity to a service area which includes the city of York, Pa. As a condition of holding its certificate, it is subject to extensive regulation by the Commission. Under a provision of its general tariff filed with the Commission, it has the right to discontinue service to any customer on reasonable notice of nonpayment of bills.[1]
[*347] Petitioner Catherine Jackson is a resident of York, who has received electricity in the past from respondent. Until September 1970, petitioner received electric service to her home in York under an account with respondent in her own name. When her account was terminated because of asserted delinquency in payments due for service, a new account with respondent was opened in the name of one James Dodson, another occupant of the residence, and service to the residence was resumed. There is a dispute as to whether payments due under the Dodson account for services provided during this period were ever made. In August 1971, Dodson left the residence. Service continued thereafter but concededly no payments were made. Petitioner states that no bills were received during this period.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.