Colgate v. Philadelphia Electric Power Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
The conclusion reached is that the bill filed in this case should be dismissed, which, of course, carries with it a denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Discussion.
The arguments addressed to us on behalf of the respective parties have been of such clarity, fairness, and fullness that there is no need of a prolonged discussion of the merits of this bill. It is the due, however, of counsel whose abilities and industry have thus lightened our labors that we make a statement of some of the reasons which have led us to the conclusion reached.
The complaint of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kohl v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Cavanaugh v. LooneySupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Osborne v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- In Re the Appraisal of Damages of TownsendNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Magruder v. Belle Fourche Valley Water Users' Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Adams v. Greenwich Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Frank Mashuda Co. v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Frank Mashuda Company v. County Of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958