New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1954)
- Charles W. Stall, Jr. v. John E. Bourne, Jr., and Ross F. Walker (4th Cir. 1985)
- Prusky Ex Rel. Windsor Securities, Inc. v. Reliastar Life Insurance (3d Cir. 2008)
- Abdela Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., D/B/A Barber Foods (1st Cir. 2004)
- Asarco, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor (6th Cir. 2000)
- Sierra Club v. Babbitt (5th Cir. 1993)
- Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (Ala. 2014)
- Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)
- Camreta v. Greene (Supreme Court of the United States 2011)
- Plinton v. County of Summit (6th Cir. 2008)
- Plinton v. County of Summit (6th Cir. 2008)
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2007)
- Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc. (1st Cir. 2003)
- Banque Franco-Hellenique De Commerce International Et Maritime, S.A. v. Orestes Christophides (2d Cir. 1997)
- Banque Franco-Hellenique de Commerce International et Maritime, S.A. v. Christophibes (2d Cir. 1997)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Chicago Club (7th Cir. 1996)
- Geer v. Kadera (Ill. 1996)
- Geer v. Kadera (Ill. 1996)
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY, Appellant, v. HELDOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee (3d Cir. 1993)
- Watson v. City Of Newark (3d Cir. 1984)
- Watson v. City of Newark (3d Cir. 1984)
- N-Ren Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Commission (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Crofters, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1972)
- Flournoy v. Wiener (Supreme Court of the United States 1944)
- Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Mercantile Commerce Bank & Trust Co. (8th Cir. 1944)
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
The District Court, specially constituted as required by statute (28 U.S.C. 380), permanently enjoined, as confiscatory, the enforcement of the rate orders which are the subject of this suit. The injunction is unqualified. Appellant, having obtained this relief, is not entitled to prosecute an appeal from the decree in its favor, for the purpose of reviewing the portions of the decree fixing the value of appellant’s property as of the years 1924,1926, and 1928, and the rate of return to be allowed. The matters set forth in these portions of the decree are not to be regarded as res judicata in relation to subsequent legislative action by the Public Service Commission in fixing rates for the future or in any judicial proeeeding relating to such rates. The motion.to dismiss the appeal is granted. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Comm’n, 289 U.S. 287, 304, 305; State Corporation Comm’n v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561; Lewis v. United States, 216 U.S. 611, 612, 613; Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 376, 377, 378; New Orleans v. Emsheimer, 181 U.S. 153, 154.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.