Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. et al., 1969 — 394 U.S. 970 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. et al.
394 U.S. 970·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Fortas, and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 776.
Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. et al.
David L. Berman, Special Assistant to the Attorney General of Utah, on the motion to dismiss.
William M. Bennett, pro se, on the motion for hearing.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. Utah. The motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal under Rule 60 and the motion of William M. Bennett for a hearing are set for oral argument on April 29,1969. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief and present oral argument if he so desires. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent, believing that the action taken by the Court abuses its own processes. See Rule 60.
Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Fortas, and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.