Legal Opinion
Spring Valley Water-Works v. Bartlett
United States Circuit Court
Decided March 9, 1883PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Motion for Injunction.
1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, J.
This is an application for an injunction, pending the litigation, to restrain the mayor and supervisors of San Francisco from passing the ordinance set out in the bill, or any other ordinance, to fix the price of water supplied to the city and people of San Francisco for one year, from July 1, 1883, in pursuance of the provisions of article 14 of the constitution of California.
The Spring Valley Water-works is a corporation created under the general statute of California, entitled “An act for the incorporation of water companies,” passed April 22, 1858, (St. 1858, p. 218.) Section 4 of this…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ex Parte SieboldSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Union Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Carr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Peik v. Chicago & North-Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- New Jersey v. YardSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Los Angeles City Water Co. v. City of Los AngelesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1898
- Spring Valley Water Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1908
- Spring Valley Waterworks v. City & County of San FranciscoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1903
- Garitty v. HalbertCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Murphy v. East PortlandU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.