SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 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.
Southern Power Company sought Supreme Court review of a lower court decree regarding whether its property had been dedicated to public use, arguing the decree violated its constitutional rights to due process and freedom of contract. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case presented primarily a factual question about property dedication rather than a substantial constitutional issue warranting certiorari review, and using the occasion to emphasize that petitioners must provide clear, definite, and complete disclosures of the legal controversy when seeking certiorari review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor statéd that the cause involved a grave question of vital importance to the public, and alleged as special reason for its reexamination that the decree would deprive petitioner of property without due process of law and of freedom to contract, contrary to the Federal Constitution. The opinion below is reported in 282 Fed. 837.
The argument developed that the controverted question. was whether the evidence sufficed to establish actual dedication of petitioner’s property to public use — primarily a question of fact. That is not the ground upon which we granted the petition and if sufficiently developed would not have moved us thereto.
Heretofore we have pointed out the necessity for clear, definite and complete disclosures concerning the controversy when applying for certiorari. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Association, 242 U. S. 430; Layne & Bowler Corporation v. Western Well Works, 261 U. S. 387. The opinion first cited states that during the 1915 term one hundred fifty-four petitions were presented and suggests the probability of a largely increased number. During the last term (1922) petitions were filed in four hundred and twenty causes.
Obviously it is impossible for us critically to examine so many records before ruling upon applications and we must rely very largely upon preliminary papers. Unless the requirements specified in Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Association are observed we cannot hope properly to dispose of an increasing docket.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
McALLISTER v. United States, 348 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1954)…v. Rimer, 220 U. S. 547; Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430; Tyrrell v. District of Columbia, 243 U. S. 1; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U. S. 387; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U. S. 508; Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co., 264 U. S. 314; Wisconsin Electric Co. v. Dumore Co., 282 U. S. 813; Sanchez v. Borras, 283 U. S. 798; Franklin-American Trust Co. v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 286 U. S. 533; Moor v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 297 U. S. 101…
-
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)…a limited appreciation of the issues in a case, resting as it so largely does on the partisan claims in briefs of counsel. See Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430, 434; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 508, 509. The Court does not, indeed it cannot and should not try to, give to the initial question of granting or denying a petition the kind of attention that is demanded by a decision on the merits. The assumption that we know no more after hearing an…1 / 2
-
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1925)
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
- Layne & Bowler Corp. v. W. Well Works, Inc., 261 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1923)
- Furness v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Ass'n, 242 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1917)