finding no state action on the part of a heavily regulated utility company, noting that state approval of a certain practice at the request of the regulated utility “where the commission has not put its own weight on the side of the proposed practice by ordering it, does not transmute a practice initiated by the utility and approved by the commission into ‘state action’ ”
How later courts described this case
- finding no state action on the part of a heavily regulated utility company, noting that state approval of a certain practice at the request of the regulated utility “where the commission has not put its own weight on the side of the proposed practice by ordering it, does not transmute a practice initiated by the utility and approved by the commission into ‘state action’ ”
- finding the fact that a private utility was heavily regulated, enjoyed a partial monopoly and elected to terminate electrical services in a manner consistent with state law was “not sufficient to connect the State of Pennsylvania with respondent’s action so as to make the latter’s conduct attributable to the State”
- holding that regulation of a utility was not a sufficient nexus to make a termination a state action
- holding that the Fourteenth Amendment offers “no shield” against “private conduct, ‘however discriminatory or wrong.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Moongate Water Co., Inc. v. Butterfield Park Mutual Domestic Water Association, 291 F.3d 1262 (2002)
Jackson specified the two actions are distinguishable, and Blum explained the distinction, stating, "[m]ere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the State responsible for those initiatives under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment." 457 U.S. at 1004-05, 102 S.Ct. 2777.
Distinguished by a later decision, 958 F.2d 1565 (1992)
The public function test "covers only private actors performing functions 'traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State,' " id., quoting Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 419 U.S. 345, 353, 95 S.Ct. 449, 454-55, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974), and is inapplicable to this case.
Distinguished by Cahill v. Public Service Commission, 69 N.Y.2d 265 (1986)
For the same basic reason — that this proceeding challenges the public conduct of the PSC and not the private conduct of the utilities — Jackson v Metropolitan Edison Co. (419 US 345, supra) and Blum v Yaretsky (457 US 991, supra) are inapplicable.
The opinion
Mb. Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
I do not think that a controversy existed between petitioner and respondent entitling petitioner to be heard in this action. Under Pennsylvania law respondent’s duty under Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 66, § 1171 (1959), to provide service was limited by § 25 of the General Rules and Regulations, the Electric Service Tariff, on file with the *365 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, to provision of such service only to “customers,” defined as “[a]ny person [s] . . . lawfully receiving service from [the] Company.” Petitioner, as the Court notes, ceased being a “customer” in September 1970 when her account was terminated for nonpayment of bills. That termination was pursuant to Rule 15 of the tariff quoted by the Court in n. 1. From September 1970 to September 1971, respondent’s “customer” was James Dodson; and his delinquency in payment for service during that period, not petitioner’s delinquency before September 1970, was the occasion for the termination of service on October 11, 1971. An effort by petitioner at that time to have service continued if she paid $30 on account on her delinquent 1970 bill failed when respondent rejected the offer and shut off the service. In these circumstances petitioner had no basis in my view for the claimed entitlement under § 1171 quoted by the Court in n. 2, and therefore no controversy existed between petitioner and respondent which could be the subject of her action. I would therefore intimate no view upon the correctness of the holdings below whether the termination of service on October 11, 1971, constituted state action but would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals with direction that the case be remanded to the District Court with instruction to enter a new judgment dismissing the complaint. See Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1969).