Supreme Court of the United States, 1930

Railroad Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 12, 1930 · Per Curiam

281 U.S. 82; 50 S. Ct. 228; 74 L. Ed. 717; 1930 U.S. LEXIS 734 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Suel O. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin, with whom Mr. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General, was on the brief, and Mr. Adolph Kanneberg for appellants., Messrs. H. L. Butler, H. H. Thomas, B. H. Stebbins, R. M. Stroud and R. M. Rieser were on the brief for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

Dyer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1954)
Kreste v. United States (2d Cir. 1946)
Michigan Employment Relations Commission v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc (Mich. 1972)
Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Commission (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cardinale Trucking Corporation (3d Cir. 1962)
General Telephone Company of Florida v. Carter (Fla. 1959)
Metalock Repair Service, Inc., and Lois R. Morrison v. Hal W. Harman (6th Cir. 1958)
Timmons v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1952)
Hodges v. State (Tex. App. 1946)
Brown v. Quinlan, Inc. (7th Cir. 1943)
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (District Court, S.D. New York 1941)
Sparks v. Hart Coal Corporation (6th Cir. 1934)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of San Antonio (District Court, W.D. Texas 1933)
Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. United States (District Court, D. Oregon 1931)
Board of Public Utility Com'rs of New Jersey v. Elizabethtown Water Co. (3d Cir. 1930)
Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1938)
Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Wis. Tel. Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
Public Service Commission v. Wisconsin Telephone Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
Railroad Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1930)

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court, composed of three judges as required by the statute, enjoining the appellants from enforcing an order of the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin fixing rates to be charged by the receiver of the Washburn Water Works Company for supplying water. The District Court gave no opinion and, aside from the general recital in the decree that the court had considered the evidence submitted by the parties and that it appeared therefrom that the *83 valuation fixed by the Railroad Commission of the property of the Company for rate making purposes was not supported, the record contains no finding whatever by the District Court.

This Court has repeatedly adverted to the importance in a suit of this character of a statement by the District Court of the grounds of its decision. Virginian Railway Company v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 674, 675; Lawrence, et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, 274 U. S. 588, 596; Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 404, 414; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States, 279 U. S. 781, 787.

In Lawrence, et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, supra, the court said: “ The importance of an opinion to litigants and to this Court in cases of this character was pointed out in Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 675. The importance is even greater where the decree enjoins the enforcement of a. state law or the action of state officials thereunder. For then, the respect due to the State demands that the need for nullifying the action of its legislature or of its executive officials be persuasively shown.”

In the present instance this Court should have the aid of appropriate findings by the District Court of the facts which underlie its conclusions.

The decree is set aside, and the cause is remanded to the District Court, specially constituted as provided by the statute, to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a decree thereon, the restraining order entered in this suit to be continued pending further action by the District Court.

Decree set aside.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.