Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co.

273 U.S. 83 (1927)

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

Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co.

United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 83 (1927)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD
Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co.

Facts

In 1917, the Narragansett Electric Lighting Company (Narragansett) and the Attleboro Steam & Electric Company (Attleboro) (plaintiff) entered into a contract for the sale of electricity from Narragansett’s power plant in Rhode Island to Attleboro, which was located in Massachusetts. Narragansett filed a rate schedule and the terms of the contract with the Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island (the commission) (defendant). The commission approved the special rate for Attleboro. In 1924, Narragansett sought to obtain an increase of the special rate for Attleboro. Narragansett filed a new rate schedule with the commission, which would have canceled the original rate schedule with Attleboro. The commission held a hearing to examine the contract rate and the proposed rate. The commission found that the contract was unreasonable and that continued service at the contract rate would prevent Narragansett from serving fully its other customers, which would be detrimental to public welfare. The commission entered an order instituting the new rate schedule for wholesale-electricity rates. Attleboro appealed the order to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the order violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because it was a direct burden on interstate commerce. The commission appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sanford, J.)

Dissent (Brandeis, 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 811,000 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 811,000 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 811,000 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