Legal Opinion

Frost v. Corporation Comm'n of Okla.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 18, 1929No. 60PublishedCited by 387 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sutherland

Appellant owns a cotton ginning business in the city of Durant, Oklahoma, which he operates under a permit from the State Corporation Commission. By a statute' of Oklahoma, originally passed in 1915 and amended from time to time thereafter, cotton gins are declared to be public utilities and their operation for the purpose of ginning seed cotton to be a public business. Comp. Stats. 1921, § 3712. The commission is empowered to fix their charges and to regulate and control them in other respects. § 3715. No gin can be operated without a license from the commission, and in order to secure such…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. ColemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1928

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

3Cited by387 opinions

  1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
  3. New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. United States v. Rock Royal Co-Operative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1939

382 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