People ex rel. New York Steam Company v. Straus
The People of the State of New York Ex Rel. New York Steam Company, Respondent, v. Oscar S. Straus Et Al., Constituting the Public Service Commission for the First District, Appellants
People ex rel. N.Y. Steam Co. v. Straus, 123 N.E. 884 (N.Y. 1919)
Summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 7, 1919, which annulled, on certiorari, a determination of the public service commission for the first district directing the relator, the New York Steam Company, to file an amendment to its rate schedules which became effective on June 1, 1917, so as to separately classify certain outstanding term contracts made in the form prescribed in its previous schedules, which contracts the company claimed had been abrogated by its own act in filing a new schedule fixing higher rates and different forms of contracts.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Gilchrist
- People ex rel. City of New York v. Nixon
- International Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission
- Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Associated Press
- City of Niagara Falls v. Public Service Commission
- Town of North Hempstead v. Public Service Corp. of Long Island
Most recent
- Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. City of New York
- George Adams Lumber Co. v. Long Island Railroad
- Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Gilchrist
- Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co. v. Seneca Iron & Steel Co.
- Town of North Hempstead v. Public Service Corp. of Long Island
- People ex rel. City of New York v. Nixon
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.