Spring Valley Waterworks v. City & County of San Francisco
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted restraining the city and county of San Francisco and its board of supervisors, and each of them, and all consumers of water in said city and county, during the pendency of this action and until its final determination, from bringing or causing to be brought any suit or action against the complainant, in law or in equity, to enforce a certain bill or…
Read the full summary
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted restraining the city and county of San Francisco and its board of supervisors, and each of them, and all consumers of water in said city and county, during the pendency of this action and until its final determination, from bringing or causing to be brought any suit or action against the complainant, in law or in equity, to enforce a certain bill or ordinance passed by said board on March 9, 1903, or any suit or action against the complainant for the forfeiture of…
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts). The ground upon which the preliminary injunction is sought in this case is that the ordinance in question violates the Constitution of the United States by depriving complainant of its property without due process of law ; that it takes complainant’s property for public use without just compensation, and deprives complainant of the equal protection of the laws.
The complainant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of California in the year 1858 for, the purpose of supplying the city and county of San Francisco and its inhabitants with pure fresh…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. WestenhaverSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Southern Pac. Co. v. BartineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1909
- Spring Valley Waterworks v. City & County of San FranciscoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1911
- Spring Valley Water Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1908
- Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of AlabamaDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.