Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville (Supreme Court of the United States 1993)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard (Wash. 1974)
- Brownlow v. Schwartz (Supreme Court of the United States 1923)
- Finberg v. Sullivan (3d Cir. 1981)
- Finberg v. Sullivan (3d Cir. 1980)
- Acheson, Secretary of State v. Droesse (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Acheson v. Droesse (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1950)
- Howard v. Wilbur (6th Cir. 1948)
- Howard v. Wilbur (6th Cir. 1948)
- Bowles v. Bayview Manor Homes, Inc. (4th Cir. 1944)
- City of West University Place v. Martin (Tex. 1939)
- Western Electric Co. v. Cinema Supplies, Inc. (8th Cir. 1935)
- O'Ryan v. Mills Novelty Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
- United States v. Anchor Coal Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1929)
- Alejandrino v. Quezon (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)
- Cohen v. Williams (1st Cir. 1926)
- Benedicto v. Porto Rican American Tobacco Co. of Porto Rico (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
- Bulloch v. Dermott-Collins Road Improvement District (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
- Harlan v. Harlan (Supreme Court of the United States 1923)
- PUBLIC UTIL. COMMRS. v. Compania General (Supreme Court of the United States 1919)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion oi the court.
By a judgment rendered March 8, 1916, the court beloV annulled an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the Philippine Islands requiring a corporate common carrier to report annually various matters pertaining to its finances and operations, the ground of the judgment being that § 16 (e) of Act 2307 of the local legislature, under which the board acted, violated the organic law of the Philippines, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, in that it confided to the board the determination of what the reports should contain and therefore amounted to a delegation of legislative power. 34 Phil. Rep. 136. The board brought the judgment here for review, and the earner now suggests that through a change in the local statute the question on which the judgment turned has become merely a moot one.
After. the case was brought here the legislature, by Act 2694, so amended § 16 (e) as to cause the section itself to prescribe in detail what such reports should contain and thereby abrogated the provision on which the order Avas based and AA'hich the court held inválid.' That provision therefore is no longer in force, and it is to the new provision that the board and carrier must give effect. EA*en if the original provision was valid, the order made under it became inoperatiAre when the new provision was substituted in its place. Whether the order was based on a \ralid or an invalid statute consequently has become merely a moot question.
In this situation aa-o are not called upon to consider the propriety of the judgment below, the proper course being,
Judgment reversed. Cause to be dismissed without costs to either party.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.