Muscatine Lighting Co. v. City of Muscatine
District Court, S.D. Iowa
In Equity. Suits by the Muscatine Righting Company against the City of Muscatine, by the Ft. Madison Gaslight Company against the City of Ft. Madison and others, by the Iowa Gas & Electric Company against the City of Mt. Pleasant and others, by the Southern Iowa Electric Company against the City of Chariton, and by the Iowa Electric Company against the City of Eairfield. Recommendation that confiscatory character of rates be stipulated before entry of order.
1Opinion of the Court
WADE, District Judge.
[1] 1. I cannot do more at this time than to briefly record the conclusions which I have reached after the extensive and helpful arguments presented in these cases. Any attempt to review the wilderness of authorities cited, or to distinguish between apparently conflicting opinions of the courts, would be fruitless, even if I had the time.
Most, of the cases at bar involve the question as to whether a specific provision in a franchise ordinance, fixing the price which shall be charged by the grantee of the franchise, is binding upon such grantee. It is not disputed that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1918
- Davis v. Town of AnitaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Miller v. City of Webster CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Kimball v. City of Cedar RapidsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1900
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ohio Citizens Trust Co. v. Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1944
- Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
- Dunn v. Fort Bend CountyDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1926
- Desimone v. ShieldsWashington Supreme Court · 1929
- Colorado Power Co. v. HaldermanDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.