PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA ET AL.
v.
BATESVILLE TELEPHONE CO.
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 Public Service Commission of Indiana appealed a Circuit Court of Appeals decision that reversed a district court's dismissal of a suit challenging the Commission's order on federal constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the Circuit Court of Appeals had decided the case solely on state law grounds rather than ruling against the validity of a state statute on federal constitutional grounds, the case was not properly appealed under the applicable jurisdictional statute and could only be reviewed by certiorari.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
This suit was brought to restrain the enforcement of an order of the Public-; Service Commission of Indiana upon the grounds that the commission had exceeded its authority and that the order violated the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The District Court (a single judge sitting, as an interlocutory injunction was not sought, Stratton v. St. Louis, S. W. Ry. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 15) dismissed the bill for want of equity. The decree was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which directed that the relief for which the bill prayed be granted. The sole ground of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals was that the Public Service Commission had no jurisdiction únder the law of the State to make the order. The statute governing appeals to this Court from the Circuit Court of Appeals is § 240 of-the Judicial Code as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), which provides in paragraphs (b) and (c) as follows:
“(b) Any case in a Circuit Court of Appeals where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of any State, on the ground of its being repugnant to the. Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is against its validity, -may, at the election of the party relying on such state statute, be taken to the Supreme Court for review on writ of error or appeal; but in that event a review on certiorari shall not be allowed at the instance of such party, and the review on such writ of error or appeal shall be restricted to an* examination and decision of the federal questions presented in the case.
“(c) No judgment or decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals or of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court otherwise than as provided in this section.”
, The plain intent of this statute is to limit appeals to this Court from a Circuit Court of Appeals to cases where its decision is against the validity of a statute of a State upon the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws .of the United States. In other cases, review' by this Court, if it be had, must be pursuant to a writ -of certiorari duly applied for-and granted.
As in this case the Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide - against the validity of the order of the Public Service Commission .upon the asserted federal grounds, but dealt with its validity, solely under the state law, the appeal must be dismissed." [See post,, p. 578.3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985)…ly invoked only where a court of appeals squarely has “held” that a state statute is unconstitutional on its face or as applied; jurisdiction does not he if the decision might rest on other grounds. Public Service Comm’n v. Batesville Telephone Co., 284 U. S. 6, 7 (1931) (per curiam). Consistent with “our practice of strict construction” of §1254(2), Fomaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 42, n. 1 (1970) (per curiam), we believe that an appeal cannot lie where a court of appeals’ judgment rests solely…
-
Walsh-McGuire Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 97 F.2d 983 (6th Cir. 1938)…., Inc., v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 54 S.Ct. 788, 78 L.Ed. 1348. The statute authorizes a deduction only by the taxpayer whose property or interests give rise to the deduction. Planters’ Cotton Oil Co., Inc., v. Hopkins, 286 U.S. 332, 52 S.Ct. 509, 76 L.Ed. 135; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 54 S.Ct. 8, 78 L.Ed. 212. Cf. Commissioner v. Bradley, 6 Cir., 56 F. 2d 728. As these taxes were paid to discharge the obligation of petitioner’s predecessor in title, they were not deductible. Merchants Bank Bldg.…
-
Davies Warehouse Co. v. Brown, 137 F.2d 201 (Emer. Ct. App. 1943)…uw University v. Public Service Comm. of Oregon, D.C., 253 F. 848, 849; Batesville Telephone Co. v. Public Service Comm. of Indiana, D.C., 38 F. 2d 511, 514, reversed 7 Cir., 46 F. 2d 226; Public Service Comm. of Indiana v. Batesville Telephone Co., 284 U.S. 6, 52 S.Ct. 1, 76 L.Ed. 135; Publix Cleaners v. Florida Dry Cleaning and Laundry Board, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 31, 34; Parsons v. Detroit & Canada Tunnel Co., D.C., 15 F.Supp. 986, 997, affirmed City of Detroit v. Detroit & Canada Tunnel Co., 6 Cir., 92 F.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stratton v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 282 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1930)
- Batesville Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Ind., 46 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1931)