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.
Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co. of Baltimore v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al.; and Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al., 1952 — 343 U.S. 963 · caselaw · US
General
Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co. of Baltimore v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al.; and Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al.
343 U.S. 963·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
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. 611.
No. 612.
Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co. of Baltimore v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al.; and Public Service Commission of Maryland v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al.
Harry N. Baetjer, Alfred P. Ramsey, G. Kenneth Reiblich and John Henry Lewin for petitioner in No. 611. Charles D. Harris for petitioner in No. 612. William J. Grove and Thomas M. Kerrigan for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; and Wilkie Bushby and James Piper for the Pennsylvania Water & Power Co., respondents. Solicitor General Perl-man and Bradford Ross filed a memorandum for the Federal Power Commission, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitions.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 194 F. 2d 89.