Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
In the three-judge District Court from which this appeal comes to us, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sued to enjoin the enforcement of a duly promulgated order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on the sole ground that the order conflicted with a federal statute. The Commission, among other defenses, con *282 tended that the federal statute was unconstitutional, but the District Court decided the case in favor of the railroad and issued an appropriate injunction. 240 F. Supp. 233 .
It follows from our recent decision in Swift & Co.
v. Wickham, ante, p. 111, that the injunction sought by the railroad, being based on incompatibility between the state order and the federal statute, was not grounded in the “unconstitutionality” of a state measure so as to require a three-judge tribunal under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1964 ed.). Nor is § 2282, requiring such a tribunal in order to enjoin “any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution,” invoked by the Commission’s defense that the federal statute is unconstitutional; it is settled that this provision “does not provide for a case where the validity of an Act of Congress is merely drawn in question, albeit that question be decided, but only for a case where there is an application for an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the enforcement of an Act of Congress.”
Garment Workers v. Donnelly Co., 304 U. S. 243, 250 .
Because a three-judge court was not required to adjudicate this suit, this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1964 ed.) to entertain a direct appeal. It does not appear from the record that the Commission lodged a protective appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the time to do so has almost certainly expired. The appeal to this Court occurred before Swift & Co. v. Wick-ham, supra, was decided, and there is no reason why the Commission should be deprived of appellate review. In accordance with precedent, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. See Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 254 .
It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Krebs v. Ashbrook
- Joseph C. Daniel, Jr. v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States
- Potomac Passengers Ass'n v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
- Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Most recent
- Thomas A. Dewitt Stephen J. Dewitt v. Pete Wilson, Governor, and Anthony Miller, Secretary of State of the State of California
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
- Joseph C. Daniel, Jr. v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc., ( Below) v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, (Defendantsbelow) v. The National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc., and Drug Andtoilet Preparation Traffic Conference, (Intervening Defendantsbelow)
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States
- Potomac Passengers Association v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
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.