TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kansas v. Burleson

State of Kansas v. Burleson, Postmaster General, Et Al.

Kansas v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 188 (1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 2, 1919
Docket
Nos. 31, Original
Judges
Cheep, White, Brandéis
Citations
250 U.S. 18839 S. Ct. 51263 L. Ed. 9261919 U.S. LEXIS 1730
Disposition
Bill dismissed.
Headnotes
Decided on the authority of Dakota, Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, ante, 163.
Summary
IN EQUITY. The case is 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 — White

*190 Mr. Cheep Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

The State of Kansas, invoking the original jurisdiction of this court, filed its bill to enjoin the Postmaster General from enforcing and the defendant corporation from giving effect to a schedule of telephone rates which the Postmaster General had established and which he had directed should be applied for telephone services rendered on lines which were in the control and possession of the United States and were being'operated as governmental agencies in virtue of the resolution of Congress and the proclamation of the President referred to and considered in Dakota Central Telephone Co.

v. South Dakota, just announced, ante, 163.

The defendants insisting that the suit was not in substance against an officer to restrain the doing of unauthorized acts, but was really one to prevent an official of the United States from discharging his duty under a law of the United States, both disputed the merits and challenged the jurisdiction. The case was heard coincidentally with the Dakota Central Telephone Case, this day decided. As the ruling in that case establishes the want of foundation for the contention made in this, as to the illegality of the acts of the officer complained of, it follows also that what was stated in that case as to the form of our decree is likewise here controlling, and for the reasons there stated in this as in that case our decree must be and is one of dismissal of the bill.

And it is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Brandéis dissents.

How later courts describe this case

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

1919: 11920: 12002: 119192026peak 1919 · 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