Jackson V. Metropolitan
1. The fact of the case is that Ms. Catherine Jackson evaded paying her electricity bill to the electric company Metropolitan Edison Co. The issue is that the electric company has disconnected her electricity services due to lack of payment.
2. The case was decided by the Supreme Court. It got to that court because the District Court granted Metropolitan’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s complaint. There was then an appeal and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari which sent the case up to the Supreme Court for review.
3. The courts below decided that the termination of electric services did not constitute state action and hence was not subject to judicial scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that Ms. Jackson did not have a case because her arguments showed that Metropolitan was a heavily regulated, privately owned utility company that elected to terminate services as a manner in which under the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission it was permissible under state law for them to do that. The Supreme Court did not find that Metropolitan was connected with the state of Pennsylvania for purposes of the 14th Amendment.
4. To be affected with the public interest means that a business remains to be property of its owner but the community around it has a huge stake in its operations.
5. The significance of the 14th Amendment in this case is that Ms. Jackson claimed that Metropolitan’s termination of her services for alleges nonpayment constituted “state action” depriving her of property thus violating the 14th Amendment. In order to establish a “due process” claim under the 14th Amendment, one must prove that they have been deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
6. The Burton case is important for this decision because it is an example of how the business is connected to the state. The key factor was that the private lessee, who practiced racial discrimination, leased space for a restaurant from a state
2. The case was decided by the Supreme Court. It got to that court because the District Court granted Metropolitan’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s complaint. There was then an appeal and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari which sent the case up to the Supreme Court for review.
3. The courts below decided that the termination of electric services did not constitute state action and hence was not subject to judicial scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that Ms. Jackson did not have a case because her arguments showed that Metropolitan was a heavily regulated, privately owned utility company that elected to terminate services as a manner in which under the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission it was permissible under state law for them to do that. The Supreme Court did not find that Metropolitan was connected with the state of Pennsylvania for purposes of the 14th Amendment.
4. To be affected with the public interest means that a business remains to be property of its owner but the community around it has a huge stake in its operations.
5. The significance of the 14th Amendment in this case is that Ms. Jackson claimed that Metropolitan’s termination of her services for alleges nonpayment constituted “state action” depriving her of property thus violating the 14th Amendment. In order to establish a “due process” claim under the 14th Amendment, one must prove that they have been deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
6. The Burton case is important for this decision because it is an example of how the business is connected to the state. The key factor was that the private lessee, who practiced racial discrimination, leased space for a restaurant from a state