Legal Opinion · Dissent

State & Port Authority v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 29, 1946No. 34,093Published

1DissentPeterson, Justice

I think that it makes no difference whether the rates fixed by the commission be called a “tariff” or just plain “rates.” Section 216.19 (§ 4644), governing rate proceedings instituted upon complaint, provides that the “tariff” of rates fixed shall be in force during the pendency of an appeal. Section 216.20 (§ 4645) adopts this provision in cases started by the attorney general. Section 216.21 (§ 4646), governing proceedings initiated by the commission itself, provides that the “rates” established shall be in force during the pendency of an appeal. It is deferentially submitted that there is…

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Yakus v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  5. Porter v. Investors SyndicateSupreme Court of the United States · 1932

51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API