Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler
Supreme Court of the United States
' IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE CALIFORNIA. The plaintiffs in error were petitioners in the courts of California for a writ of mandamus against the defendants in error. The constitutional question at issue was the right of the State of California to alter the plaintiff’s charter. The facts making the case to raise this question are stated in .the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice.Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
Art. IY., sec. 31, of the Constitútion of California adopted in 1849 is as follows:
“ Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act except for municipal purposes. All general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this section may be altered from time to time, or repealed.”
Acts were passed by the legislature under this authority on the 14th of April, 1853, and the 30th of April, 1855, providing for the formation of corporations for certain purposes, and on the 22d of April,1858, these acts were…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Boyd's Lessee v. GravesSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Sinking-Fund CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Wales v. StetsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
3Cited by147 opinions
- Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial RelationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Budd v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.