Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States. Thank you for your support! United States Supreme Court U.
Metropolitan Edison Company Warren E. The judgment and opinion of the Court inJackson against Metropolitan Edison will be announced by Mr. This case arises out of respondent Metropolitan Edison's termination of electrical service to the residence of Catherine Jackson, the petitioner, for alleged non-payment of bills for prior utility service.
Metropolitan is a privately owned company licensed and regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. Its action in terminating petitioner's utility service was permitted by a provision of its general tariff which had been filed with the state utilities commission. Petitioner brought suit against Metropolitan in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking damages and injunction requiring Metropolitan to continue providing service until she had received a hearing and an opportunity to pay the amounts found due.
Petitioner argued that she had an entitlement to electric service under a Pennsylvania statute which constituted property under the Due Process Clause. And that Metropolitan's termination had deprived her of this entitlement without minimum procedural protections required by that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment.
She further argues that Metropolitan's termination was state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. We granted certiorari to review this judgment. Our cases from the civil rights cases of forward have recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment opens to judicial scrutiny only in state action and not private action.
The threshold question in this case is whether Metropolitan's action in terminating service was sufficiently closely connected to the State of Pennsylvania to be fairly attributable to that state for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We hold that is not. Under our decisions, the partial monopoly status of Metropolitan and the fact that it is subject to state regulation do not create a sufficient nexus between the state and the termination to make the termination state action.
The provision of electrical services also is not traditionally exclusive state function. Respondent's exercise of the choice allowed by state law in this case where the initiative comes from it and not from the state does not make its action that of the state for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Taking all of petitioner's arguments together we find that the State of Pennsylvania is not sufficiently connected with the termination so as to make its action state action.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is therefore affirmed. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall have each filed a separate dissenting opinion in the case.Metro Atlanta, designated by the United States Office of Management and Budget as the Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area, is the most populous metro area in the US state of Georgia and the ninth-largest metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the United kaja-net.comt city: Atlanta.
Facts. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Edison) (defendant) was a privately owned and operated electricity company that was authorized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to deliver electricity to York, Pennsylvania and surrounding areas.
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF DALLAS NAACP et al., Donald E. CURRY et al., petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF DALLAS NAACP et al., Ralph F. BRINEGAR et al., petitioners, v.
METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF DALLAS NAACP et al. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of John A. Jackson on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
Participants are expected to sketch from works in the Metropolitan galleries. A discussion and question session will follow. Artists may also present three examples of previous work for critique.
Supreme Court Toolbox. Archive of cases. Stay Involved.