State v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding because nuclear power plant was only accelerating condition that would naturally have occurred, it was not charged with polluting creek in violation of N.J.S.A. 23:5-28
• holding because nuclear power plant was only accelerating condition that would naturally have occurred, it was not charged with polluting creek in violation of N.J.S. A 23:5-28
• state regulation conflicting with AEC regulation is preempted, but not all state regulation of nuclear plants for all purposes
• damages for death of fish in stream caused by sudden discharge of cold water from nuclear power plant
• 6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).