Shrader v. Horton, s. 79-1547 and 79-1548
| Decision Date | 21 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-1547 and 79-1548,s. 79-1547 and 79-1548 |
| Citation | 626 F.2d 1163 |
| Parties | 1980-2 Trade Cases 63,446 Jerry SHRADER, et al., etc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. A. W. HORTON, Jr., etc., et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Z. D. Christian, Bluefield, Va., S. Strother Smith, III, Abingdon, Va. (Smith, Robinson & Vinyard, Abingdon, Va., on brief), for appellants/cross-appellees.
Roger W. Mullins, Tazewell, Va. (Mullins & Galumbeck, Tazewell, Va., on brief) and R. Leonard Vance, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, James E. Ryan, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees/cross-appellants.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises in a Federal court suit brought in 1978 by nearly 100 property owners or residents (plaintiffs) in the Abbs Valley Community of Tazewell County, Virginia, with private water supply systems approved by the State Water Authority, against the members of the Tazewell County Water and Sewage Authority and the Board of Supervisors of the County (defendants) to enjoin them from requiring plaintiffs to connect to a public water system at their own expense and also preventing them from using their existing water sources. 1
Plaintiffs declared on the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, 2 charging that the mandatory connection eliminates competition from private sources. 3 They also complained that the State statute's exaction that they join in the water service and abandon their own potable water wells and springs is a "taking" of their property, without just compensation, and so is invasive of their Constitutional protections.
Responding, defendants first pleaded to the jurisdiction on a catholicity of grounds including: (1) the Johnson Act 4 barring the suit as one involving "an order affecting rates . . ."; (2) the doctrine of comity, alleging it dictated abstention by the Federal court here, because the State's internal administrative regulation is in issue; and (3) lack of justiciability, maintaining that the action was premature and unripe since the water project had not been completed. The principal defense to the claim of taking without just compensation was that the ordinance is a reasonable exercise of police power and compensation is, therefore, unnecessary.
Upon a comprehensive consideration of each issue tendered by these contentions and upon apt invocation of unquestionable principle and precedent, the Court accepted jurisdiction but dismissed the action on the merits. We affirm on the District Judge's opinion. Shrader v. Horton, 471 F.Supp. 1236 (W.D.Va.1979). 5
Affirmed.
1 Va. Code § 15.1-1261 (Repl.Vol.1973) reads as follows:
Water and sewer connections. Upon the acquisition or construction of any water system or sewer system under the provisions of this chapter, the owner, tenant, or occupant of each lot or parcel of land which abuts upon a street or other public way containing a water main or a water system, a sanitary sewer which is a part of or which is served or may be served by such sewer system and upon which lot or parcel a building shall have been constructed for residential, commercial or industrial use, shall, if so required by the rules and regulations or a resolution of the authority, with concurrence of such local government, municipality, or county that may be involved, connect such building with such water main or sanitary sewer, and shall cease to use any other source of water supply for domestic use or any other method for the disposal of sewage, sewage waste or other polluting matter. All such connections shall be made in accordance with rules and regulations which shall be adopted from time to time by the authority, which rules and regulations may provide for a charge for making any such connection in such reasonable amount as the authority may fix and establish.
2 15 U.S.C. §§ 51, 2 and 8.
3 The District Court found that the State action immunity doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schiessle v. Stephens
...Puerto Rico and United States within state action exemption); Shrader v. Horton, 471 F.Supp. 1236, 1241 (W.D.Va.1979), aff'd, 626 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir. 1980) (city ordinance establishing mandatory water system hook-up within state action exemption); Virginia Academy v. Blue Shield of Virginia......
-
Stern v. Halligan
...to public water is a legitimate exercise of police power. See, e.g., Shrader v. Horton, 471 F.Supp. 1236 (W.D.Va.1979), aff'd, 626 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir.1980); Lepre v. D'Iberville Water & Sewer Dist., 376 So.2d 191 (Miss.1979); Town of Ennis, 807 P.2d at 184; New Jersey v. Kusznikow, No. A-97......
-
Kingmill Valley Public Service Dist. v. Riverview Estates Mobile Home Park, Inc.
...health." 227 U.S. at 308, 33 S.Ct. at 292, 57 L.Ed. at 523. See also Shrader v. Horton, 471 F.Supp. 1236 (W.D.Va.1979), aff'd 626 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir.1980); City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enterprises, Inc., 144 Ariz. 375, 697 P.2d 1125 (App.1984); State v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 726, 27 So......
-
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. PUC OF MAINE, Civ. A. No. 83-0166-P.
...commissions setting rates for the charges of public utilities. Shrader v. Horten, 471 F.Supp. 1236 (W.D.Va.1979), aff'd, 626 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir.1980). One purpose of the Act was to remove constitutional challenges to such orders from the federal courts, Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Council o......