OMAHA & COUNCIL BLUFFS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
OMAHA & COUNCIL BLUFFS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
222 U.S. 582
Supreme Court of the United States (1911)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 56 L. Ed. 324 · 32 S. Ct. 833 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1791 · SCDB 1911-027
Cited by 25 cases
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Synopsis
The Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Company sought to enjoin enforcement of an Interstate Commerce Commission order requiring rate adjustments pending appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court granted the company's motion to suspend and enjoin enforcement of the ICC order during the appeal, conditioned upon the company posting a $10,000 bond to cover any damages to passengers if the ICC order were ultimately found valid.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
Upon the authority of Revised Statutes, § 716; Ex parte Milwaukee Railroad Co., 5 Wall. 188; Leonard v. Ozark Co., 115 U. S. 465, 468; In re Classen, 140 U. S. 200, 207; In re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536, 549; United States v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563, 573; and upon full consideration of the facts bearing upon the propriety of the appellants’ motion for an order to maintain the status quo pending.this appeal, it is ordered that the enforcement of the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission entered November 27,1909, and drawn in question in this case; be, and it is, suspended and enjoined during the pendency of this appeal, upon condition that within 10 days herefrom the appellants execute unto the Interstate-Commerce Commission and file in this cause a good and sufficient bond in the sum of. $10,000, with sureties to be approved by the clerk of this court, and conditioned that the appellants will promptly pay any and all damages which may be suffered by their several passengers and intended passengers by reason of the granting or. continuance of this order if it is adjudged ultimately that the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission,' drawn in question in this case, is. a valid one. ' All other per curiam opinions, decisions on petitions for writs of certiorari, and orders disposing of cases in vacation between the end of October Term, 191Ó, and April 1, 1912, will appear in Volume 223, United States Reports.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1926)…here involved. It is clear that this Court, or a justice thereof, has power to grant a stay of the Commission’s order pending the appeal. The power was exercised by the full Court in Omaha & Council Bluffs Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 222 U. S. 582, in a case coming from the Commerce Court under the Act of 1910. Whether the district court of three judges under the Act of 1913 possesses like power has never been considered by this Court. The existence of the power was affirmed by a divided dist…
-
Beaumont v. United States, 282 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1930)…ly the court had authority in its discretion, upon entry of the decree dismissing the bill, to stay the enforcement of the prescribed divisions pending appeal. Virginian Ry. v. United States, supra, 669. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Comm., 222 U. S. 582. Cumberland Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 260 U. S. 212, 219. Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards Co., 82 Fed. 850, 857. The court considered, and it cannot be said without reason, that the questions raised by the assignments of error are novel and do…
-
State of Wash. v. United States, 87 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1936)…807; Gaines v. Clark, 51 App.D.C. 71, 275 F. 1017,1019. See cases under note 18; Connor v. Peugh’s Lessee, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 394, 15 L.Ed. 432; Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14, 22, 24 L.Ed. 49; Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323; In re Engelhard & Sons Co., 231 U.S. 646, 34 S.Ct. 258, 58 L.Ed. 416; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Co., 253 U.S. 219, 40 S.Ct. 511, 64 L.Ed. 870; New York City v. New York Tel. Co., 261 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 372, 67 L.Ed. 673; Un…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1906)
- Hovey & Another v. McDONALD & Another, 109 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1883)
- In re Claasen, 140 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1891)
- Knox Cnty. v. Harshman, 132 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1889)
- In re McKenzie, 180 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1901)
- Leonard v. Ozark Land Co., 115 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1885)
- Ex parte The Milwaukee R.R. Co., 5 Wall. 188 (U.S. 1866)