<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Federalism Issues - Public Utilities</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/federalism/public-utilities/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Central VA Comm. College v. Katz</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Katz, the supervisor of a bookstore that declared bankruptcy, filed a suit to collect debts owed to the bookstore by Central Virginia Community College and several other schools operated by the state of Virginia. Katz also petitioned to prevent the schools from filing claims to collect money from the bookstore because of its bankruptcy status. The colleges argued that they could not be sued by Katz because of state sovereign immunity (which holds that a state must consent in order to be sued). The bankruptcy court disagreed, however, finding that Congress's authority under the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution (Article I Section 8) was sufficient to allow them to waive states' sovereign immunity in bankruptcy cases.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_885/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Chicago v. Atchison, T. &amp; S. F. R. Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_103/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>City Of Tacoma v. Taxpayers</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_509/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;South Carolina Maritime Services, Inc. (Maritime Services), asked the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA) five times for permission to berth a cruise ship, the M/V Tropic Sea, at the SCSPA's port facilities in Charleston, South Carolina. Some cruises offered by Maritime Services would allow passengers to participate in gambling activities while on board. The SCSPA repeatedly denied Maritime Services' requests, contending that it had an established policy of denying berths in the Port of Charleston to vessels whose primary purpose was gambling. Maritime Services file a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), arguing that SCSPA violated the Shipping Act by its denials. The complaint was referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that the SCSPA, as an arm of the State of South Carolina, was entitled to sovereign immunity and thus dismissed the complaint. Reversing on its own motion, the FMC concluded that state sovereign immunity covers proceedings before judicial tribunals, not Executive Branch agencies. In reversing, Court of Appeals fund that the proceedings were an adjudication and thus subject to state sovereign immunity.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_46/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Ferc v. Mississippi</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1749/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Firemen v. Chicago, R. I. &amp; P. R. Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_16/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that incumbent local-exchange carriers (LECs) provide interconnection with their existing networks; that the carriers then establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transporting and terminating the calls of each others' customers; and that their interconnection agreements be approved by a state utility commission. Verizon Maryland Inc., the incumbent LEC in Maryland, negotiated an interconnection agreement with MCI WorldCom, Inc. After the Maryland Public Service Commission approved the agreement, Verizon informed WorldCom that it would no longer pay reciprocal compensation for calls made by Verizon's customers to the local access numbers of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) because ISP traffic was not local traffic subject to the reciprocal compensation agreement. WorldCom filed a complaint with the Commission, which ordered Verizon to make the payments for past and future ISP-bound calls. Verizon then filed an action in federal district court, seeking an injunction prohibiting its enforcement, alleging that the determination that Verizon must pay reciprocal compensation for ISP traffic violated the Act. The District Court dismissed the action. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the Commission had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the Act did not provide a basis for jurisdiction over Verizon's claims.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1531/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
