Ramapo Water Co. v. City of New York
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the impairment of obligation and due process clauses of the Federal Constitution of legislation of the State of New York in regard to the new water supply for the City of New York, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the impairment of obligation and due process clauses of the Federal Constitution of legislation of the State of New York in regard to the new water supply for the City of New York, are stated in the opinion. The bill having alleged the existence' of a contract and its impairment and the possession of property and its deprivation without due process of law, a case arising under the United States Constitution was presented, and the District Court had…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is a bill in equity to restrain the City of New York and the Board of Water Supply from proceeding further with the enterprise upon which they already had spent over one hundred and twenty-nine million of dollars in order to provide the city with a supply of water. The ground is as follows:
The plaintiff (appellant) originally was incorporated under a general act, in 1887, for the purpose of storing and supplying water for mining, domestic, manufacturing, municipal and agricultural purposes, to cities, other corporations, and persons. By virtue of other statutes it had the right to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. . Adirondack Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Sauer v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Adirondack Railway Co. v. New York StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Calder v. Michigan Ex Rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical Installation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. PowelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Sears v. City of AkronSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Bank of Blytheville v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Browning v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- STATE HIGHWAY COM'N, ETC. v. WieczorekSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.