Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corp.
349 U.S. 44 (1955)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corp., 349 U.S. 44 (1955)

Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corporation

Argued March 28-29, 1955

Decided April 11, 1955*

349 U.S. 44

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA

Syllabus

A State may not fix a minimum price to be paid for natural gas, after its production and gathering has ended, by a company which transports the gas for resale in interstate commerce, because such .sale and transportation are subject to regulation by the Federal Power Commission exclusively.

271 P.2d 354 and 272 P.2d 425 reversed.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, Oklahoma has attempted to fix a minimum price to be paid for natural gas, after its production and gathering has ended, by a company which transports the gas for resale in interstate commerce. We held in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin,347 U. S. 672, that

Page 349 U. S. 45

such a sale and transportation cannot be regulated by a State, but are subject to the exclusive regulation of the Federal Power Commission. The Phillips case therefore controls this one. We disagree with the contention of the appellees that Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil and Gas Co.,340 U. S. 179, and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma,340 U. S. 190, are applicable here. In those cases, we were dealing with constitutional questions, and not the construction of the Natural Gas Act. The latter question was specifically not passed upon in those cases.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, being of opinion that State regulation of price is permissible until the Federal price regulation permitted by Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin,347 U. S. 672, is imposed, dissents. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

* Together with No. 321, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al., also on appeal from the same court, argued March 29, 1955.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.