TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.

City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company

City of Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 231 U.S. 652 (1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 5, 1914
Docket
No. 538
Judges
McKenna
Citations
231 U.S. 65234 S. Ct. 26058 L. Ed. 4191914 U.S. LEXIS 1437
Syllabus
Decided on authority of In re Louisville, ante, p. 639.
Summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP KENTUCKY. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — McKenna

*653 Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.

Appeal from the order of March 10, 1913, referred to in Nos. 11 and 12, Original, and which order it was the object of the petition for mandamus passed on in No. 11 to command the Judge of the District Court to vacate. The appeal also includes certain other orders which preceded the making of that order. The question, which is fundamental of all, is whether the decision and decree of this court set out in No. 11, Original, and the mandate issued thereon permitted further proceedings in the suit or necessarily required its dismissal. This is the general basis of the assignments of error, and as included in it, special objection is made to the instructions given the master in the orders appealed from, to the refusal of the court to order the Telephone Company to pay into court for immediate distribution among those entitled thereto, whatever sums the company collected in excess of the ordinance rates, and deciding instead that a bond should' be required of the company for the restitution of the amounts if the ordinance rates should ultimately be held not to be confiscatory. These objections are repeated in the usual way of assignments of error.

The discretion vested in the court, we considered in No. 11, Original, and repetition would serve no purpose. For the reasons there given the order of the District Court is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11917: 11919: 11925: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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