Legal Opinion
Durham Public Service Co. v. City of Durham
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 19, 1923No. 251PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
As . the cause is properly here upon writ of error— Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 555; Act September 6, 1916, 39 Stat. 726 — we deny the petition for certiorari.
Plaintiff in error was incorporated by the Legislature of North Carolina in 1901 and empowered to operate car lines in the streets of Durham when so authorized by the municipal authorities. Shortly thereafter and in pursuance of an agreement they granted the necessary authority. The Supreme Court of North Carolina — 182 N. Car. 333 — affirmed a judgment of the Superior Court which sustained an assessment…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. City of GoldsboroSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Hancock v. City of MuskogeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. Wisconsin Ex Rel. City of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Sioux City Street Railway Co. v. Sioux CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. DecaturSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Georgia Power Co. v. City of DecaturSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- Georgia Power Co. v. City of DecaturSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
- Georgia Power Co. v. City of DecaturSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- City of Paragould v. Arkansas Utilities Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.