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.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. City of Seattle; and City of Seattle v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, 1969 — 396 U.S. 803 · caselaw · US
General
Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. City of Seattle; and City of Seattle v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County
396 U.S. 803·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
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
October 13, 1969
No. 2.
No. 3.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. City of Seattle; and City of Seattle v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County.
A. L. Newbould and Richard S. White for the City of Seattle in both cases. Clarence C. Dill, William G. Ennis, and Bennett Boskey for Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County in both cases. Solicitor General Griswold filed a memorandum for the United States as amicus curiae, by invitation of the Court, 390 U. S. 935, in opposition to the petitions.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Petitions for writs of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
Reported below: 382 F. 2d 666.