Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

419 U.S. 345, 95 S. Ct. 449, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1974)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

United States Supreme Court
419 U.S. 345, 95 S. Ct. 449, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1974)

Play video

Facts

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Edison) (defendant) was a privately owned and operated electricity company that was authorized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (commission) to deliver electricity to York, Pennsylvania, and surrounding areas. It was subject to extensive regulation by the commission and was granted approval by the commission to discontinue service to any customer on reasonable nonpayment of bills. Catherine Jackson (plaintiff) was a resident of York and customer of Edison. She defaulted on her bill payments and had her service disconnected but convinced Edison to reinstate it under the name of James Dodson, another resident in her home. However, when Dodson moved out of the home and Jackson continued to default on the payments, Edison visited the premises and attempted to collect payment. Jackson requested that the service be reinstated under another name, which Edison later discovered was that of her 12-year-old son. Edison disconnected Jackson’s service four days later with no other notice. Jackson brought suit in district court alleging that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, she could not be deprived of electricity service without adequate notice and a hearing before an impartial body. The district court dismissed the case because it found no state action present, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)

Dissent (Marshall, J.)

Dissent (Douglas, J.)

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 812,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership