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 ...)
 
m (bold)
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]]

Revision as of 22:57, 3 May 2008

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.