City of Paducah v. Hast Tennessee Telephone Co.

Sixth Circuit

City of Paducah v. Hast Tennessee Telephone Co.

182 F. 625

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1910

DocketNo. 2,028

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 F. 625 (City of Paducah v. Hast Tennessee Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Paducah v. Hast Tennessee Telephone Co., 182 F. 625 (6th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the parties being citizens of the same state, depended entirely upon the question whether a law of the state of Kentucky was in contravention of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States forbidding the impairment of the obligations of contracts by state legislation, and of section 1 of the fourteenth améndment thereof, forbidding legislation by any state which shall deprive any person of property without due process of law. All other questions involved were such as concerned the merits. In such cases an appeal lies only to the Supreme Court of the United States, as prescribed by section 5 of the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals (Act March 2, 1891, c. 501, 26 Stat. 826). Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 23 Sup. Ct. 604, 47 L. Ed. 712; McFadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 29 Sup. Ct. 490, 53 U. Ed. 801; Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks, 115 Fed. 318, 53 C. C. A. 146.

The appeal must be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this case the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the parties being citizens of the same state, depended entirely upon the question whether a law of the state of Kentucky was in contravention of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States forbidding the impairment of the obligations of contracts by state legislation, and of section 1 of the fourteenth améndment thereof, forbidding legislation by any state which shall deprive any person of property without due process of law. All other questions involved were such as concerned the merits. In such cases an appeal lies only to the Supreme Court of the United States, as prescribed by section 5 of the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals (Act March 2, 1891, c. 501, 26 Stat. 826). Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 23 Sup. Ct. 604, 47 L. Ed. 712; McFadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 29 Sup. Ct. 490, 53 U. Ed. 801; Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks, 115 Fed. 318, 53 C. C. A. 146.

The appeal must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F. 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-paducah-v-hast-tennessee-telephone-co-ca6-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack