Duke Power Co v. Greenwood County
Decision Date | 03 January 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 397,397 |
Citation | 302 U.S. 485,58 S.Ct. 306,82 L.Ed. 381 |
Parties | DUKE POWER CO. et al. v. GREENWOOD COUNTY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. W. S. O'B. Robinson, Jr., of Charlotte, N.C., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 485-489 intentionally omitted] Messrs. W. H. Nicholson, of Greenwood, S.C., and D. W. Robinson, Jr., of Columbia, S.C., for respondent Greenwood County.
Mr. Jerome N. Frank, of New York City, for respondents Ickes and others.
This case presents the same question as that just decided in Nos. 84 and 85. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 58 S.Ct. 300, 82 L.Ed. 374. The respondents are essentially the same, with the addition of Greenwood County, in the state of South Carolina, and the members of the finance board of the county. The suit was brought to enjoin the construction and operation of a local electric power plant in the county, and the making of a loan and grant by the federal administrator to the county, for that purpose, under the provisions of title 2 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, § 201 et seq., 40 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq., set forth, so far as material, in Nos. 84 and 85, supra.
The case was here on a previous writ, upon consideration of which this court, because of substantial irregularities in practice, reversed the judgment of the court below with directions to vacate the decrees entered by the District Court, and remand the cause to that court with directions to permit the parties to amend their pleadings in the light of existing facts, and retry the cause upon the issues then presented. We expressed no opinion upon the merits or the relevancy or effect of the evidence. 299 U.S. 259, 57 S.Ct. 202, 81 L.Ed. 178. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the District Court, and reheard. The District Court, after making findings of fact and conclusions of law, dismissed the bill. The court below, upon appeal, considered the case fully, and delivered an exhaustive opinion. It held (1) that the statute, under which the administrator proposed to act, was constitutional; (2) that he acted within the power granted him by the statute; and (3) that in any event no legal right of plaintiffs was violated by what had been done. 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 665; see, also, preceding decision, 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 986.
Upon the question of petitioners' standing to maintain the suit, the lower court held, in substance, that the competition proposed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard
...S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 475, 58 S.Ct. 300, 82 L.Ed. 374, and Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 302 U.S. 485, 58 S.Ct. 306, 82 L.Ed. 381 (where it was asserted not only that the statute was invalid but that, if valid, the acts of the officer purs......
-
Rural Electrification Admin. v. Northern States Power Co.
...S.Ct. 300, 82 L.Ed. 374; Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. T. V. A., 306 U. S. 118, 59 S.Ct. 366, 83 L.Ed. 543; Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood, 302 U.S. 485, 58 S.Ct. 306, 82 L.Ed. 381; Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924, cert. den. 350 U.S. 884, 76 S.Ct. ......
-
Associated Industries v. Ickes
...Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, supra; Greenwood County v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 986, 999. And see Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 302 U.S. 485, 58 S.Ct. 306, 82 L.Ed. 381. Congress could have said that the holder of a radio license has an individual substantive right to be free o......
-
United States v. State of Mississippi, Civ. A. No. 3312.
... ... Jr., Chester Curtis, Clarksdale, Miss., Aubrey Bell, Hardy Lott, Greenwood, Miss., J. O. Sams, Jr., William Burgin, Jr., W. H. Jolly, Columbus, ... State Board of Election Commissioners, and six county registrars of voters (the regularly elected Circuit Clerks of their ... acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. * * * ... "But the constitutional ... 55 Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 665, 672; Affirmed 302 U.S ... ...