Supreme Court· 7/6/1976

Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co.

Citations

428 U.S. 579
96 S. Ct. 3110
49 L. Ed. 2d 1141
1976 U.S. LEXIS 4
15 P.U.R.4th 401

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

observing that “[t]he statute creating the Commission contains no direct reference to light bulbs”
discussing an unfairness theory as support for clothing private conduct required by the state with state action immunity
discussing an unfairness theory as support for clothing private conduct required by the state with state action immunity
“nothing unjust in a conclusion that ... [defendant’s] participation in the decision is sufficiently significant to require that its conduct implementing the decision . . . conform to applicable federal law”
“[N]othing in the Noerr opinion implies that the mere fact that a state regulatory agency may approve a proposal included in a tariff ... is a sufficient reason for conferring antitrust immunity on the proposed conduct.”
even state encouragement of private action may be insufficient to implicate the state to confer anti-trust immunity where party was not compelled to act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackmun, Burger, Powell, Rei-Inquist, Stevens, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

308 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

47 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co.

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.