Difference between revisions of "Pacific Gas and Electric v. Public Utility Commission"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: In ''Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal.'', 475 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1986) a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state agency cannot cannot require a utility ...)
 
(top: clean up & uniformity)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In ''Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal.'', 475 U.S. 1, 20-21  (1986) a plurality of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a state agency cannot cannot require a utility company to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelope.  Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] concurred.
+
In '''''Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal.''''', 475 U.S. 1, 20-21  (1986) a plurality of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a state agency cannot cannot require a utility company to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelope.  Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] concurred.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
+
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:First Amendment]]
+
[[Category:First Amendment]]

Latest revision as of 06:57, 27 June 2016

In Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1986) a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state agency cannot cannot require a utility company to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelope. Justice Thurgood Marshall concurred.