United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division et al.
The Court interpreted the Natural Gas Act as allowing a gas supply company to unilaterally change a rate in a supply contract when the contract specified the rate as that of the schedule filed with the Federal Power Commission and the company filed a new schedule.· AI-written
358 U.S. 103 · No. 23 · 1958 term · Warren Court
Decided Dec 8, 1958 · argued Oct 20, 1958
Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: gas pipeline
Majority opinion: John Harlan
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed. United Gas Pipe Line Co. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
United Gas Pipe Line Co. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division, 358 U.S. 103 (1958), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) as allowing a gas supply company to unilaterally modify a rate in a natural gas supply contract if the contract specified that the rate was that of the rate schedule filed with the Federal Power Commission (FPC) and the gas company filed a new rate schedule. This case clarified the Mobile-Sierra doctrine established by United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. (1956) and its companion case Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. (1956), which holds that an electricity or natural gas supply rate established resulting from a freely negotiated contract is presumed to be "just and reasonable" and thus acceptable under the NGA or Federal Power Act (FPA).
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1958 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John HarlanWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Charles WhittakerJoined the majority
Felix FrankfurterJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
William DouglasWrote a dissent
Hugo BlackJoined a dissent
Earl WarrenJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Tom Clark.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United Gas Pipe Line Co.Pipe line company
- Respondent
- Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division et al.Electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Dec 8, 1958DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed. United Gas Pipe Line Co. won.
- Oct 20, 1958ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: reversed.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: gas pipeline, newest first.
- Skinner, Secretary of Transportation v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.490 U.S. 212Apr 25, 1989 · 490 U.S. 212Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division et al.411 U.S. 458May 7, 1973 · 411 U.S. 458Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. et al.406 U.S. 621Jun 7, 1972 · 406 U.S. 621Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. et al.386 U.S. 237Mar 13, 1967 · 386 U.S. 237Economic activity5–36–3 band
- California et al. v. Lo-Vaca Gathering Co. et al.379 U.S. 366Jan 18, 1965 · 379 U.S. 366Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Federal Power Commission v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. et al.371 U.S. 145Dec 3, 1962 · 371 U.S. 145Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Power Commission v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. et al.365 U.S. 1Jan 23, 1961 · 365 U.S. 1Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Federal Power Commission et al. v. Interstate Natural Gas Co. et al.336 U.S. 577Apr 18, 1949 · 336 U.S. 577Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.