NEWTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
v.
KINGS COUNTY LIGHTING COMPANY
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.
The State of New York sought to enforce statutes capping the price of gas distributed by Kings County Lighting Company at $1.00 and later $0.80 per thousand cubic feet, but the company challenged the rates as confiscatory, alleging that its actual costs of manufacturing and distributing gas exceeded the statutory maximum. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment enjoining enforcement of the price-fixing statutes, finding that the company's evidence established the rates were confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from' a final decree entered October 19, 1920, which enjoined the enforcement of c. 125, Laws of New York of 1906, ahd also the Act of New York Legislature approved May 9, 1916, c. 604, Laws of 1916. 268 Fed. 143. The first of these statutes fixed the price which appellee might charge for gas distributed in New York City at $1.00 per thousand cubic-feet, and the second amended the earlier one by reducing the maximuih price to eighty cents. The original bill filed in May, 1920, alleges that the actual cost to appellee of manufacturing and distributing gas during 1919 and the first .three months of 1920 had exceeded eighty cents per thousand cubic feet; that such cost would not be less than $1.00 for an indefinite period thereafter; and that the, statutory rate was confiscatory.
The matter was referred to a Master who took proof and made a report which supported appellee’s claim. With some unimportant modifications this was confirmed by the court. An appropriate decree followed which wé are ¿sked to reverse for sundry specified reasons com-, mented upon orally and in the brief.
We are satisfied that the court below reached a correct conclusion and that none of the points relied upon for reversal are adequate to justify such action. So far as substantial all were adequately disposed of by the opinion of the trial court, and we need not comment further upon them.
The judgment below is
Affirmed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (59 total)
-
Tabas v. Alice lola Hudson, 175 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…court for failure to obey the amended final decree imposing the mandatory injunction, on the ground that said decree is unlawful because he failed to appeal that decree, which he msut obey. See: Howat v. State of Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550; United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884. The record on appeal contains substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding the appellant in contempt for failure to obey the provisi…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Furman, 451 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1984)…it to issue. Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Tampa Southern Railroad, 101 Fla. 468, 477, 134 So. 529, 533 (1931). See also Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967); Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922). We turn then to the referee’s findings that respondent contemptuously continued the unauthorized practice of law in violation of our injunction. The referee found in pertinent part: J. Ms. Furman prepared pleadings that went beyond just tr…
-
United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972)…ing alleging its disobedience. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210; United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 293-294, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550; United States v. Bukowski, 435 F. 2d 1094, 1108 (7th Cir. 1970), certiorari denied, 401 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 874, 27 L.Ed.2d 809; United States v. Hammond, 419 F. 2d 166, 168 (4th Cir. 1969); United States v. Tijerina, 412 F. 2d 661, 666 (10th Cir.),…
Previewing 3 of 59 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence