Oklahoma Antural Gas Co v. Russell Oklahoma Gas Electric Co v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma 20 21, 1923

Citation67 L.Ed. 659,43 S.Ct. 353,261 U.S. 290
Decision Date05 March 1923
Docket NumberNos. 406,419,s. 406
PartiesOKLAHOMA ANTURAL GAS CO. v. RUSSELL et al. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. et al. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA. Argued Feb. 20-21, 1923
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. D. A. Richardson, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.

Messrs. R. M. Rainey, S. B. Flynn, and Dennis T. Flynn, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.

Mr. E. S. Ratliff, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees Corporation Commission and others.

Mr. Henry G. Snyder, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees Russell and others.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

These two cases were argued separately, but they turn on the same point, were decided in a single opinion by the Court below and do not require a separate consideration here. The plaintiffs are corporations organized under the laws of Oklahoma and furnish natural gas to consumers in that State, at rates established by the Corporation Commission. They applied to the Commission for higher rates but were denied an advance. The Constitution of Oklahoma, admitted to be like that of Virginia dealt with in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 29 Sup. Ct. 67, 53 L. Ed. 150, gives an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, acting in a legislative capacity as explained in the case cited, with power to substitute a different order and to grant a supersedeas in the meantime. Appeals were taken to the Supreme Court and supersedeas was applied for but refused. The appeals are still not decided. After the plaintiffs had been denied a supersedeas by the Supreme Court, they filed these bills alleging that the present rates are confiscatory, setting up their constitutional rights and asking preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions unless the Supreme Court should allow adequate rates. Applications for temporary injunctions supported by evidence were heard by three judges but were denied by the majority on the authority of the Prentis Case. Appeals were taken directly to this Court.

A doubt has been suggested whether these cases are within section 266 of the Judicial Code, Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087, 1162, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1913, c. 160, 37 Stat. 1013 (Comp. St. § 1243). The section originally forbade interlocutory injunctions restraining the action of state officers in the enforcement or execution of any statute of a State, upon the ground of its unconstitutionality, without a hearing by three judges. The amendment inserted after the words 'enforcement or execution of such statute' the words 'or in the enforcement or execution of an order made by an administrative board or ommission acting under and pursuant to the statutes of such State' but did not change the statement of the ground, which still reads 'the unconstitutionality of such statute.' So if the section is construed with narrow precision it may be argued that the unconstitutionality of the order is not enough. But this Court has assumed repeatedly that the section was to be taken more broadly. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Finn, 235 U. S. 601, 604, 35 Sup. Ct. 146, 59 L. Ed. 379; Phoenix Ry. Co. v. Geary, 239 U. S. 277, 280, 281, 36 Sup. Ct. 45, 60 L. Ed. 287; Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission (November 20, 1922), 260 U. S. 212, 43 Sup. Ct. 75, 67 L. Ed. ——; Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Georgia (February 19, 1923), 261 U. S. 264, 43 Sup. Ct. 252, 67 L. Ed. ——. The amendment seems to have been introduced to prevent any question that such orders were within the section. It was superfluous, as the original statute covered them. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U. S. 298, 301, 318, 34 Sup. Ct. 48, 58 L. Ed. 229; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 555, 34 Sup. Ct. 364, 58 L. Ed. 721; Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 221 U. S. 400,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
154 cases
  • Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce v. Torquato
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 1, 1956
    ...... of Westinghouse Electric Corporation for unemployment. compensation is ... 20, 1956, are approved. The stoppage commencing as ...Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 138. Pa.Super.Ct. 243, 247 (1939); National ... Kuykendall, 265 U.S. 196, 201, 205; Oklahoma Natural. Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, 261 ... act ( Oklahoma Nat. Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U.S. 290). [125 A.2d 763] . preclude a ......
  • Metro. Edison Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 16, 2014
    ...of the Oklahoma Supreme Court concerning the character of ... a [prior] determination”); Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U.S. 290, 291, 43 S.Ct. 353, 67 L.Ed. 659 (1923) (“The Constitution of Oklahoma [ ] ... gives an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, acting in a legislative c......
  • Cardle v. Indianapolis Water Co 16 19, 1926
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1926
    ...District Court, so that the evidence may be re-examined there in the light of the applicable rules. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 293, 43 S. Ct. 353, 67 L. Ed. 659; Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U. S. 196, 44 S. Ct. 553, 68 L. Ed. 975. Compare Chicago, M. ......
  • Barlow v. Marion Cty. Hospital Dist., 80-15-Civ-Oc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • July 29, 1980
    ...injury of the type which led the Supreme Court to make an exception to the exhaustion doctrine in Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U.S. 290, 43 S.Ct. 353, 67 L.Ed. 659 (1923). The Court is also of the opinion that the statutory preconditions to a private civil suit in the instant ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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