Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission
E425636
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a four-part test for determining the constitutionality of government restrictions on commercial speech under the First Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4267664 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court, hasNotableCase, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission]
-
A.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited courts’ ability to impose additional procedural requirements on federal agencies beyond those mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant statutes.
-
B.
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the modern test for evaluating state laws under the Constitution’s Contract Clause, particularly in the context of regulated utility contracts.
-
C.
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission is a landmark 1971 federal court decision that gave strong judicial force to the National Environmental Policy Act by requiring agencies to rigorously consider environmental impacts in their decision-making.
-
D.
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 is a U.S. federal law that promoted energy conservation and the development of small-scale and renewable power generation by reforming electric utility rate structures and encouraging competition.
-
E.
Eisner v. Macomber
Eisner v. Macomber is a 1920 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a pro rata stock dividend was not taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment, shaping early federal income tax doctrine.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Target entity description: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a four-part test for determining the constitutionality of government restrictions on commercial speech under the First Amendment.
-
A.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited courts’ ability to impose additional procedural requirements on federal agencies beyond those mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant statutes.
-
B.
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the modern test for evaluating state laws under the Constitution’s Contract Clause, particularly in the context of regulated utility contracts.
-
C.
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission is a landmark 1971 federal court decision that gave strong judicial force to the National Environmental Policy Act by requiring agencies to rigorously consider environmental impacts in their decision-making.
-
D.
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 is a U.S. federal law that promoted energy conservation and the development of small-scale and renewable power generation by reforming electric utility rate structures and encouraging competition.
-
E.
Eisner v. Macomber
Eisner v. Macomber is a 1920 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a pro rata stock dividend was not taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment, shaping early federal income tax doctrine.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
commercial speech case ⓘ landmark First Amendment case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
freedom of speech ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1980-02-26 ⓘ |
| citation | 447 U.S. 557 ⓘ |
| citedFor | four-part test for commercial speech restrictions ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
John Paul Stevens
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | First Amendment free speech clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedYear | 1980 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1980-06-20 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
John Paul Stevens
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| establishedTest | Central Hudson test NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Restrictions on commercial speech are subject to intermediate scrutiny under a four-part test.
ⓘ
The New York Public Service Commission’s ban on promotional advertising by an electric utility violated the First Amendment. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Byron R. White
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ Warren E. Burger NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
commercial speech ⓘ government regulation of advertising ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | New York Court of Appeals NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 557 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precedentFor | subsequent commercial speech cases ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Public Service Commission of New York NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | Judgment of the New York Court of Appeals reversed. ⓘ |
| standardOfReview | intermediate scrutiny ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | New York NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
energy conservation advertising restrictions
ⓘ
regulation of utility advertising ⓘ |
| testPart |
Whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial.
ⓘ
Whether the commercial speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. ⓘ Whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted. ⓘ Whether the regulation is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. ⓘ |
| volume | 447 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Description of subject: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a four-part test for determining the constitutionality of government restrictions on commercial speech under the First Amendment.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.