CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS et al.
No. 85.
Argued January 13-14, 1958.
Decided January 20, 1958.
Joe Rolston argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Conrad C. Mount, O. R. Stites and Mark H. Adams.
Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for the Federal Power Commission, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Doub, Paul A. Sweeney, Robert S. Green, Willard W. Gatchell and Howard E. Wahrenbrock.
Dale M. Stucky and Frank G. Theis argued the cause for appellees. With them on the brief was Clyde Milligan.
A joint brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the States of Arkansas, by Bruce Bennett, Attorney General; Colorado, by Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General; Kansas, by John Anderson, Attorney General; Louisiana, by Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General, and Bailey Walsh, Special Assistant Attorney General; Mississippi, by Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General; Nebraska, by C. S. Beck, Attorney General; New Mexico, by Fred M. Standley, Attorney General; North Dakota, by Leslie R. Bur gum, Attorney General; Oklahoma, by Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General; Texas, by Will Wilson, Attorney General, and James N. Ludlum, First Assistant Attorney General; Utah, by E. R. Callister, Attorney General; and Wyoming, by Thomas 0. Miller, Attorney General. Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, and William C. Wines, Assistant Attorney General, filed a statement adopting the brief filed by the various State Attorneys General as amici curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672; Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corporation, 349 U. S. 44.
case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason