Murray v. City of Pocatello
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the contract clause of the Federal Constitution of a statute of Idaho, are stated in the opinion. The obligation of the contract evidenced by Ordinance 86 has been impaired in violation of Article I, § 10, of the Federal Constitution, and plaintiff in error has been deprived of its property without due process of law, contrary to the provisions.of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the contract clause of the Federal Constitution of a statute of Idaho, are stated in the opinion. The obligation of the contract evidenced by Ordinance 86 has been impaired in violation of Article I, § 10, of the Federal Constitution, and plaintiff in error has been deprived of its property without due process of law, contrary to the provisions.of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho did not give full faith and credit to the final judgment of the Circuit Court of…
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By
Mr. Justice Holmes.
This was an application by the defendant in error for a mandate requiring the plaintiff in error;. Murray, to appoint, commissioners to act with commissioners appointed by the city in determining water rates to be charged by Murray. Murray relied upon an.ordinance of June 6,1901, as establishing by contract the only method of fixing rates. The city relied upon a subsequent statute, § 2839, Rev. Code. - The Supreme Court of .thé State held that the Constitution in force when the ordinance was passed made it impossible for the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Forsyth v. HammondSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. TampaSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Ontario Land Co. v. WilfongSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
3Cited by9 opinions
- Muellenberg v. JoblinskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Ledbetter v. WesleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- In Re Merced Irr. Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1939
- Hustead v. H. E. Brown Timber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1932
- City of Pocatello v. MurrayIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.