TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co.

Newton, Attorney General of the State of New York, Et Al. v. Kings County Lighting Company

Newton v. Kings Cnty. Lighting Co., 258 U.S. 180 (1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 13, 1922
Docket
No. 295
Judges
McReynolds
Citations
258 U.S. 18042 S. Ct. 26866 L. Ed. 5501922 U.S. LEXIS 2257
Syllabus
Approving the conclusion of the. master and of the District Court, that the gas rate imposed on appellee under New York Laws, 1906, c. 125; 1916, c. 604, had become confiscatory.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Appeal from a decree enjoining enforcement of a statutory gas rate as confiscatory. See also the preceding cases, ante, 165, 178.

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

Opinion — McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from' a final decree entered October 19, 1920, which enjoined the enforcement of c. 125, Laws of New York of 1906, ahd also the Act of New York Legislature approved May 9, 1916, c. 604, Laws of 1916. 268 Fed. 143 . The first of these statutes fixed the price which appellee might charge for gas distributed in New York City at $1.00 per thousand cubic- feet, and the second amended the earlier one by reducing the maximuih price to eighty cents.

*181 The original bill filed in May, 1920, alleges that the actual cost to appellee of manufacturing and distributing gas during 1919 and the first .three months of 1920 had exceeded eighty cents per thousand cubic feet; that such cost would not be less than $1.00 for an indefinite period thereafter; and that the, statutory rate was confiscatory.

The matter was referred to a Master who took proof and made a report which supported appellee’s claim. With some unimportant modifications this was confirmed by the court. An appropriate decree followed which wé are ¿sked to reverse for sundry specified reasons com-, mented upon orally and in the brief.

We are satisfied that the court below reached a correct conclusion and that none of the points relied upon for reversal are adequate to justify such action. So far as substantial all were adequately disposed of by the opinion of the trial court, and we need not comment further upon them.

The judgment below is Affirmed,

How later courts describe this case

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

1922: 11925: 11938: 12002: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie167 Misc. 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1938)
  2. Benson v. Hunter2002 OK CIV APP 44, 45 P.3d 444
  3. Sackett v. Paine128 A. 209 (R.I. 1925)
  4. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Newton202 A.D. 473 (1922)

Most recent

  1. Benson v. Hunter2002 OK CIV APP 44, 45 P.3d 444
  2. Consolidated Water Co. v. Maltbie167 Misc. 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1938)
  3. Sackett v. Paine128 A. 209 (R.I. 1925)
  4. Kings County Lighting Co. v. Newton202 A.D. 473 (1922)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kings Cnty. Lighting Co. v. Nixon, 268 F. 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1920) 6

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