Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHillman, Eugene L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-12T21:58:39Z
dc.date.available2013-02-12T21:58:39Z
dc.date.issued1973en_US
dc.identifier.citation6 Creighton L. Rev. 417 (1972-1973)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/38742
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|A number of recent federal cases indicate that a controversy exists over the constitutionality of public utility termination methods. These cases involve the discontinuance of gas, water or electrical service to a purportedly non-paying customer without affording a pre-termination hearing. All but one of these cases indicate that present termination methods deprive consumers of due process under the fourteenth amendment and the 1871 Civil Rights Act. One recent case, Bronson v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, illustrates the infirmities of the old procedures and possible guidelines for new ones. THE BRONSON CASE In October, 1969; Mrs. Eloise Bronson received exorbitant utility bills from Consolidated Edison (Con Ed). She responded by paying only her previous rates. She attempted through inquiry and complaint to settle the dispute. Mrs. Bronson discovered that her landlord had been diverting current through her meter. She reported this to Con Ed, but the bills continued at the higher rate. On May 11, 1971, with the erroneous charges still unpaid, Con Ed shut off her current. Mrs. Bronson sought aid from the New York Department of Social Services and obtained an emergency check for the sum demanded. Con Ed resumed service but sent Mrs. Bronson continuing demands for the "arrears'" In mid-June, 1972, two Con Ed representatives visited Mrs. Bronson's home to demand payment of the arrears, and the company again threatened service termination. After this threat, suit was filed in federal district court challenging Con Ed's cut-off procedure as violative of fourteenth amendment due process...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleConstitutional Law - Procedural Due Process - Notice and Hearing Required Prior to Utility Termination - Bronson v. Consolidated Edison Co., 350 F. Supp, 443 (S.D. N.Y. 1972)en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume6en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1972-1973en_US
dc.description.pages417en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record