Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co.
Southern Power Company v. North Carolina Public Service Company Et Al.
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.
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 →- U.S. Supreme Court11
- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts5
- State Highest Courts6
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- State v. Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union
- Santa Margarita Mutual Water Co. v. State Water Rights Board of California
- Dome Pipeline Corp. v. Public Service Commission
- City of St. Louis v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp.
- Harr v. Pioneer Mechanical Corp.
- United States v. Avery
Most recent
- Dome Pipeline Corp. v. Public Service Commission
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp.
- Williamson v. Rubich
- The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc.
- State v. Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union
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.