Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co.

263 U.S. 508, 44 S. Ct. 164, 68 L. Ed. 413, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2814
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 7, 1924
Docket110
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 263 U.S. 508 (Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U.S. 508, 44 S. Ct. 164, 68 L. Ed. 413, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2814 (1924).

Opinion

*509 Me. 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.

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

Related

Dome Pipeline Corp. v. Public Service Commission
439 N.W.2d 700 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.
332 S.E.2d 397 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
Williamson v. Rubich
171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 253 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1960)
The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc.
359 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
352 U.S. 521 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc.
349 U.S. 70 (Supreme Court, 1955)
McAllister v. United States
348 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1954)
United States v. Shannon
342 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court, 1952)
Luella Hannan Memorial Home v. First Nat. Bank
31 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. Michigan, 1940)
City of St. Louis v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp.
97 F.2d 726 (Eighth Circuit, 1938)
Georgia Public-Service Commission v. Georgia Power Co.
186 S.E. 839 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Washington Fidelity National Insurance v. Burton
287 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Harr v. Pioneer Mechanical Corp.
1 F. Supp. 294 (S.D. New York, 1932)
United States v. Avery
30 F.2d 728 (N.D. New York, 1927)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Texas
275 U.S. 494 (Supreme Court, 1927)
Mellon v. McKinley
275 U.S. 492 (Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 U.S. 508, 44 S. Ct. 164, 68 L. Ed. 413, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-power-co-v-north-carolina-public-service-co-scotus-1924.