First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 152, 66 S. Ct. 906, 90 L. Ed. 1143 (1946)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
The First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative (the cooperative) (plaintiff) sought a license from the Federal Power Commission (the commission) (defendant) to build a dam and reservoir on the Cedar River near Moscow, Iowa, and a power plant on the Mississippi River near Muscatine, Iowa (the project). The proposed project included a significant diversion of water from the Cedar River that would result in a major reduction in flow on the Cedar River and deliver the water to a new upstream point on the Mississippi River. Iowa opposed the project. The commission determined that the project was reasonable and practical, provided substantial benefits in power and recreational opportunities, and had a reasonable price. Nonetheless, without prejudice, the commission dismissed the license application because the cooperative had failed to show that the project also complied with state law and procedures, as the commission felt may be required under the Federal Power Act (the act). The cooperative appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. The cooperative then sought and was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.