RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN ET AL.
v.
MAXCY, RECEIVER
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 Railroad Commission of Wisconsin sought to enforce rate-setting orders for a water company's receiver, but a three-judge federal district court enjoined enforcement without providing written findings or opinion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that district courts must state their findings of fact and conclusions of law when enjoining enforcement of state regulatory action, particularly to demonstrate to the Supreme Court and state officials why nullification of state action is necessary.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court, composed of three judges as required by the statute, enjoining the appellants from enforcing an order of the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin fixing rates to be charged by the receiver of the Washburn Water Works Company for supplying water. The District Court gave no opinion and, aside from the general recital in the decree that the court had considered the evidence submitted by the parties and that it appeared therefrom that the valuation fixed by the Railroad Commission of the property of the Company for rate making purposes was not supported, the record contains no finding whatever by the District Court.
This Court has repeatedly adverted to the importance in a suit of this character of a statement by the District Court of the grounds of its decision. Virginian Railway Company v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 674, 675; Lawrence, et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, 274 U. S. 588, 596; Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 404, 414; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States, 279 U. S. 781, 787.
In Lawrence, et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, supra, the court said: “ The importance of an opinion to litigants and to this Court in cases of this character was pointed out in Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 675. The importance is even greater where the decree enjoins the enforcement of a. state law or the action of state officials thereunder. For then, the respect due to the State demands that the need for nullifying the action of its legislature or of its executive officials be persuasively shown.”
In the present instance this Court should have the aid of appropriate findings by the District Court of the facts which underlie its conclusions.
The decree is set aside, and the cause is remanded to the District Court, specially constituted as provided by the statute, to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a decree thereon, the restraining order entered in this suit to be continued pending further action by the District Court.
Decree set aside.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Gen. Tel. Co. OF Fla. v. Carter, 115 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1959)…R.A., N.S., 1151, Ann.Cas.1916A, 18. As to the value of that property and as to the revenue and expenses incident to that business, separately considered, there should be specific findings. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Maxcy, 281 U.S. 82, 83, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 717, [718].” The Florida Supreme Court recognized that separation of intrastate business from interstate business was essential in State ex rel. Railroad Commissioners v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 1904, 48 Fla. 129, 37 So. 314. This holding…1 / 2
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1939)…S. 152, 155, 156. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 179, 180; United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 184 U. S. 416, 424; Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Lincoln, 223 U. S. 349, 361-365. Railroad Commission v. Maxcy, 281 U. S. 82; Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 304 U. S. 55. Compare Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 162 U. S. 197, 238, 239; Southern Railway Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co., 214 U. S. 297, 302; Florida v. United States, 292 U…
-
Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1940)…single judge. But compare Gilchrist v. Interborough Co., 279 U. S. 159. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas join in these views. 28 F. Supp. 44. Compare Home Telephone & Teleg. Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U. S. 206; Railroad Commission v. Maxcy, 281 U. S. 82; Public Service Comm’n v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 289 U. S. 67; Interstate Circuit v. United States, 304 U. S. 55; Borden’s Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 194; Polk Company v. Glover, 305 U. S. 5. United States v. Corrick, 298 U. S. 435,…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1926)
- Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1929)
- Lawrence v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588 (U.S. 1927)
- Cleveland v. United States, 275 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1928)