Legal Opinion · Dissent
Huppuch v. Spring Brook Water Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 1923Published
1DissentHinman, J.
The presumption is in favor of the new rate and the burden is upon the consumer to establish the fact that such rate is unreasonable and excessive. (Meara v. Citizens Waterworks Co., 110 Misc. Rep. 738; affd., 191 App. Div. 913; Silberberg v. Citizens Water Supply Co., 116 Misc. Rep. 595; Municipal Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 225 N. Y. 89; City of Mount Vernon v. N. Y. Inter Urban Water Co., 115 App. Div. 658; Knoxville v. Water Co., 212 U. S. 1; Mechanics Banking Assn. v. Spring Valley S. & L. Co., 25 Barb. 419.) The complaint, even aided by additional facts set forth in the plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Simpson v. ShepardSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Municipal Gas Co. v. Public Service CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- People Ex Rel. Kings County Lighting Co. v. WillcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.