FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

v.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ET AL.; AND CITY OF COLTON V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Aro Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., Inc., 377 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1964)
  …to that extent. 312 F. 2d 52. In our view the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that its “previous decision in this case was not reversed insofar as unlicensed Ford cars are concerned.” 312 F. 2d, at 57.1 [*613] However, we granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 958, to consider that question, and to consider also the issue that had not been decided in Aro I: whether Aro is liable for contributory infringement, under 35 U. S. C. § 271 (c), with respect to its manufacture and sale of replacement fabrics for the…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Fed. Power Comm'n v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1964)
  …use PUC regulation of the Edison-Colton sale was permissible under the Commerce Clause. Because of the importance of the question in the administration of the Federal Power Act we granted the separate petitions for certiorari of the FPC and Col-ton. 372 U. S. 958. We reverse. We hold that § 201 (b) grants the FPC jurisdiction of all sales of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce not expressly exempted by the Act itself,6 and that the FPC properly asserted jurisdiction of the Edison-Colton sal…