TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

Southern Power Company v. North Carolina Public Service Company Et Al.

Southern Power Co. v. N.C. Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U.S. 508 (1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 7, 1924
Docket
No. 110
Judges
McReynolds
Citations
263 U.S. 50844 S. Ct. 16468 L. Ed. 4131924 U.S. LEXIS 2814

Opinion — McReynolds

*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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1924: 11926: 21927: 41932: 21936: 11938: 21940: 11952: 11954: 11955: 11957: 11958: 21959: 11960: 11981: 11985: 11989: 119242026peak 1927 · 4

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U.S. 430 (1917) 24
Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U.S. 387 (1923) 33
N.C. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Southern Power Co., 282 F. 837 (4th Cir. 1922) 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list