Spring Valley Water Co. v. City & County of San Francisco
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction.
1Opinion of the Court
FARRINGTON, District Judge.
Under the provisions of the Constitution of the state of California, art. 14, § 1, it is the duty o£ the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco in the month of February of each 3-ear to fix the rates or oompen.sation to he collected by any person, company, or corporation for the use of water to be supplied to that, city and county and to its inhabitants during the year commencing on the 1st day of July thereafter. The Constitution declares that the ordinance by which such rates are so established “shall continue in force one y'--w and no longer…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- 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
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Spring Valley Waterworks v. City & County of San FranciscoU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1911
- Corica v. RagenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
- Contra Costa Water Co. v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- In re Arkansas Railroad RatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1909
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.