RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN ET AL.
v.
MAXCY, RECEIVER, 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.
The Wisconsin Railroad Commission denied a water utility company's application for a rate increase, but the district court found the Commission's property valuation and expense estimates were too low and that enforcing the rate denial would constitute confiscation in violation of due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision enjoining enforcement of the Commission's order, holding that the court's findings regarding the inadequacy of the valuation and estimates had adequate support in the record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
Maxcy, Receiver of the Washburn Water Works Company, by an original bill filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, January 2, 1929, sought to prevent enforcement of an order by the Wisconsin.Railroad Commission dated December 4, 1928, which denied application of that Company for permission to make a general increase in water rates.
After answer the cause was heard, by stipulation, on the pleadings and affidavits. Without opinion or findings the court entered a decree April 5, 1929, enjoining enforcement of the challenged order, as prayed by the bill. Upon appeal here that decree was set aside and the cause remanded with directions to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a decree thereon. Railroad Commission v. Maxcy, 281 U. S. 82.
Obeying our mandate the court below made proper findings; and entered a final decree July 5, 1930. The present appeal followed.
The Railroad Commission appraised the property of the Water Works Company for rate making purposes at $75,000.00. It estimated the probable future annual operating income as $17,720.00, operating expenses $12,868.32, net annual return $4,852.82. And it said this would yield something less than 7% on the approved valuation of the property devoted to public use.
Having again heard the cause upon pleadings and affidavits the court held that the valuation placed upon the property by the Railroad Commission was too low and contrary to the evidence; also that the Commission’s estimate of operating expenses was too low and contrary to the evidence; and further that the Commission’s order. if enforced would cause confiscation. Accordingly, it entered a final decree restraining the defendants from taking any steps to enforce the order. After examining the findings and conclusions and the record upon which, they are based, we can find no adequate reason for disapproving the result reached by the court below.- Its decree will be affirmed.
The facts are 'peculiar; the applicable principles of law have been stated in former opinions here. ... To enter upon a detailed discussion of them at this timeVould serve no useful purpose. .
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (201 total)
-
Reo U. Hill v. State, 238 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1970)…322.03 and 322.15 (1907), F.S.A. . 114 So. 2d 784, 787 (Fla.1959). . 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed. 2d 930 (1967). . 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, IS L.Ed.2d 943 (1967). . 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). . 282 U.S. 344, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931). . 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed. 2d 60 (1970). . In Colonnade the Court notes that in See it reserved decision on administrative inspections relating to licensed and regulated activities. The Court in Colonnade recognize…
-
State v. Markus, 211 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2017)…ate each case of alleged exigency based ‘on its own facts and circumstances.’ ” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996), and Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931)). Welsh is the seminal case that courts look to in determining whether probable cause for a minor offense authorizes law [*908] enforcement to conduct a warrantless home search and arrest. In Welsh, a witness observed a car swe…
-
State v. Sobrino, 587 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…arrest sustained even though arresting officer acted on information obtained from others rather than on personal knowledge) (citations omitted), reversed in part on other grounds sub nom. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. [*1355] 344, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); Brady v. United States, 300 P. 540, 543 (6th Cir.) (“It is well established that the right of arrest without warrant by a private person, in the absence of restrictive statutes, goes at least this far: That if a felony has in f…
Previewing 3 of 201 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.R. Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy, 281 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1930)