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.
COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA et al., 1959 — 359 U.S. 341 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA et al.
359 U.S. 341·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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
COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 719.
Decided April 27, 1959.
Frederick M. Rowe for appellants.
J. Thomason Phelps for the Public Utilities Commission of California, and Arthur T, George, Eugene M. Prince and Francis R. Kirkham for the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., appellées.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions to dismiss, are granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.