Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. The facts are stated in the opinion. The act of 1905 is an attempt to control interstate commerce, and cannot be sustained under the police power. As is established by principle and authority, the court must examine the reasonableness of a claim to support a state statute regulating commerce, under the guise of an exercise of the police power.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. The facts are stated in the opinion. The act of 1905 is an attempt to control interstate commerce, and cannot be sustained under the police power. As is established by principle and authority, the court must examine the reasonableness of a claim to support a state statute regulating commerce, under the guise of an exercise of the police power. The act of 1905, as applied to the Passaic, is without any justification in the needs of the inhabitants of the State. Water when reduced to possession is a commodity, which may be…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is an information, alleging that the defendant (the plaintiff in error), under a contract with the City of Bayonne in New Jersey, has laid mains in that city for the purpose of carrying water to Staten Island in the State of New York. By other contracts it is to get the water from th» Passaic River, at Little Falls, where the East Jersey Water Company has a large plant by which the water is withdrawn. On May 11,1905, the State of New Jersey, reciting the need of preserving the fresh water of the State for the health and prosperity of the citizens, enacted that “It shall be unlawful for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Manigault v. SpringsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Georgia v. Tennesssee Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Kansas v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Knoxville Water Co. v. KnoxvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
3Cited by471 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Ross v. MoffittSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
466 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.