Jackson v metropolitan

Under a tariff filed with the PUC, the company may discontinue providing electric service to a customer after a reasonable notice for the non-payment of an electric bill. Catherine Jackson, a resident of York, received electric service under her name to her home, but her service was discontinued in September because of a delinquency in payments due for service. A new account for electric service was then opened in the name of James Dodson, another resident of the house, and service was resumed.

Jackson v metropolitan

They are premised on different facts and Jackson v metropolitan local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.

Jackson v metropolitan

In each instance, [p] they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate.

Jackson v metropolitan

In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools. The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws.

Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment.

This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced.

At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate.

In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates.

Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown.

As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race.

Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. County Board of Education, U. Oklahoma State Regents, U. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff.

And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education. In the instant cases, that question is directly presented.

Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back towhen the Amendment was adopted, or even towhen Plessy v.

Facts of the case Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States.

We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout [p] the Nation.

Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.The Respondent, Metropolitan Edison Co.

(Respondent), a private utilities company was held not to be a state actor and therefore, the Petitioner, Catherine Jackson (Petitioner), was not entitled to continuous electrical service nor did the company’s termination of electrical services constitute a deprivation of her property without procedural.

"Honoré de Balzac and Natoire’s The Expulsion from Paradise" Metropolitan Museum Journal, v. 49 (). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, December 15, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, December 15, Jackson v.

Metropolitan Edison Co., U.S. (), is an administrative law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that extensive state regulation of a public utility does not transform its acts into state action that is reviewable by a federal court under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionCitations: U.S.

(more), 95 S. Ct. ; 42 L. Ed. 2d ; U.S. LEXIS 50; 8 P.U.R.4th 1. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of John A. Jackson on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

Facts. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Edison) (defendant) was a privately owned and operated electricity company that was authorized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to deliver electricity to York, Pennsylvania and surrounding areas.

Supreme Court Toolbox. Archive of cases. Stay Involved.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company - Case Brief