Cavanaugh v. Looney

Citation63 L.Ed. 354,248 U.S. 453,39 S.Ct. 142
Decision Date13 January 1919
Docket NumberNo. 107,107
PartiesCAVANAUGH et al. v. LOONEY, Attorney General of Texas, et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Joseph Manson McCormick, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

Messrs. B. F. Looney and C. M. Cureton, both of Austin, Tex., for appellees.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The University of Texas is a state institution under immediate control of officers known as regents, appointed by the Governor, with its principal educational departments in Travis and Galveston counties. An act of the Legislature, approved August 30, 1911 (S. B. No. 20, c. 6, General Laws Texas) undertook to authorize the regents to purchase or condemn through proceedings in the district courts such lands within those counties as they might deem expedient for extension of campus or other university purposes. Appellants have long owned and used as a residence homestead twenty-six acres in Travis county desirable as an addition to the university grounds. Having failed in their efforts to purchase, the regents were about to meet and ask the Attorney General to institute proceedings to condemn this entire tract. Thereupon appellants instituted this proceeding against them and the Attorney General in the United States District Court seeking to restrain their threatened action——

'on the ground [among others] that said law conflicts with the Constitution of the United States, in that the defendants are thereby pretendedly authorized to take plaintiffs' property without due process of law, and plaintiffs are thereby deprived of the equal protection of the laws.'

They alleged invalidity of the act because in conflict with both state and federal Constitutions and averred:

'That unless restrained by writ for this honorable court, the said defendants constituting the board of regents of the University of Texas will, at their next meeting aforesaid, request the Attorney General to file a petition in the dis trict court of Travis county for the condemnation of their property or a part thereof under said pretended act, and that the said Attorney General, unless so restrained, will comply with said request of the board of regents, acting under said purported act, and that the filing of such petition will cause irreparable loss and damage to your petitioners by impounding their property in court pending the disposition of said proceeding and will cloud the title thereto and prevent the vending of same or any part thereof.'

The challenged act provides: That if the regents cannot agree with the owners for purchase they shall request the Attorney General to file petition in the district court of the county, describing the land, stating purpose for which desired, and praying that its value be ascertained and decree be entered vesting title thereto in the state; that upon filing such petition the owner shall be cited as in other civil causes; that at the first term thereafter the cause shall be tried by a jury upon a single issue as to the value of the land and the decision of such jury shall be final—provided there shall be a right of appeal as in other civil cases; that when the value has been ascertained and the court satisfied therewith it shall enter a decree vesting title but not until such amount together with all reasonable costs and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees shall be paid to the owner or into court for his benefit.

It is alleged that the act of 1911 especially offends the Constitution of Texas because a local law passed without the required notice; and that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
127 cases
  • NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 21, 1958
    ...485, 76 S.Ct. 491, 100 L.Ed. 577; Beasley v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 191 U.S. 492, 24 S.Ct. 164, 48 L.Ed. 274; Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 457, 39 S.Ct. 142, 63 L.Ed. 354; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 46 S. Ct. 492, 70 L.Ed. 927; Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 279 U.......
  • Sierra Club v. Hobet Mining Llc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • July 12, 2010
    ...Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982) (quoting Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 456, 39 S.Ct. 142, 63 L.Ed. 354 (1919)). “[T]he basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal ......
  • Propper v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1949
    ...the rightful independence of the state governments' and for the smooth working of the federal judiciary. See Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 457, 39 S.Ct. 142, 143, 63 L.Ed. 354; Di Gio- vanni v. Camden Ins. Ass'n, 296 U.S. 64, 73, 56 S.Ct. 1, 5, 80 L.Ed. 47.' Railroad Comm'n of Texas v.......
  • Sierra Club v. Babbitt, CV F 99-5219 AWI DLB.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • July 12, 1999
    ..."is essential in order effectually to protect property rights against injuries otherwise irremediable." Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 456, 39 S.Ct. 142, 143, 63 L.Ed. 354 (1919). The Court has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been ir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The CWA in relation to other laws
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...rights against injuries otherwise irremediable.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo , 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982) (quoting Cavanaugh v. Looney , 248 U.S. 453, 456 (1919)). Although it may be argued that the proper equitable balancing was implicit in the district court’s opinion, issued the same day ......
  • DEBS AND THE FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 2, December 2022
    • December 1, 2022
    ...suffered through harm to economic and proprietary interests"). (75) 450 U.S. 305 (1982). (76) Id. at 312 (quoting Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 456 (1919)); see also LAJIM, LLC: v. Gen. Elec. Co., 917 F.3d 933, 943 (7th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 58 (2019) (mem.), which quote......
  • Sorting out federal and state judicial roles in state institutional reform: abstention's potential role.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 29 No. 1, October 2001
    • October 1, 2001
    ...note 13, at 6 (citing Pullman, 312 U.S. at 498). (22.) R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 501 (quoting Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453, 457 (23.) Burford, 319 U.S. at 316-17. (24.) Id. at 317. (25.) Id. at 325. The court went on to add that "[t]o prevent the confusion of mu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT