STATE OF KANSAS
v.
BURLESON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, ET AL.
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.
Kansas sought to enjoin the Postmaster General from enforcing telephone rates he had established for telephone lines operated by the federal government during wartime. The Supreme Court dismissed Kansas's suit, holding that the case was an impermissible attempt to restrain a federal officer from performing his lawful duties under congressional authority, and that the Postmaster General's actions were authorized by Congress and the President's proclamation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Cheep Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The State of Kansas, invoking the original jurisdiction of this court, filed its bill to enjoin the Postmaster General from enforcing and the defendant corporation from giving effect to a schedule of telephone rates which the Postmaster General had established and which he had directed should be applied for telephone services rendered on lines which were in the control and possession of the United States and were being'operated as governmental agencies in virtue of the resolution of Congress and the proclamation of the President referred to and considered in Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, just announced, ante, 163.
The defendants insisting that the suit was not in substance against an officer to restrain the doing of unauthorized acts, but was really one to prevent an official of the United States from discharging his duty under a law of the United States, both disputed the merits and challenged the jurisdiction. The case was heard coincidentally with the Dakota Central Telephone Case, this day decided. As the ruling in that case establishes the want of foundation for the contention made in this, as to the illegality of the acts of the officer complained of, it follows also that what was stated in that case as to the form of our decree is likewise here controlling, and for the reasons there stated in this as in that case our decree must be and is one of dismissal of the bill.
And it is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Brandéis dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp. & the United States, 258 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1922)
-
Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1942)…7, 240, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000, showing that the ruling as to mootness in United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., supra, is to be regarded as based on the constitutional provision. See Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030; United States v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U.S. 812, 49 S.Ct. 262, 73 L.Ed. 971; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814. See Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293; Chandler v. Wise, 307 U.S…
-
William v. Boggess, 233 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1956)…f the particular case.” United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische, etc., Co., supra, 239 U.S. at page 478, 36 S.Ct. at page 217; see: Heitmuller v. Stokes, supra, 256 U.S. at page 362, 41 S.Ct. 522; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 1919, 250 U.S. 360, 39 S.Ct. 512, 63 L.Ed. 1030; Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 1906, 200 U.S. 446, 26 S.Ct. 314, 50 L.Ed. 545; South Spring Hill Gold Min. Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Min. Co., 1892, 145 U.S. 300, 12 S.Ct. 921, 36 L.Ed. 712. To dismiss the appeal as moot,…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (U.S. 1866)