Supreme Court of the United States, 1938

Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 3, 1938 · Sutherland, Black

302 U.S. 485; 58 S. Ct. 306; 82 L. Ed. 381; 1938 U.S. LEXIS 81 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. W. S. O’B. Robinson, Jr., with whom Messrs. Newton D. Baker, R. T. Jackson, W. R. Perkins, H. J. Haynsworth, J. H. Marion and W. B. McGwire, Jr. were on the brief, for petitioners., Mr. W. H. Nicholson, with whom Messrs. James F. Dreher and D. W. Robinson, Jr. were on the brief, for Greenwood County and its Finance Board, respondents., Mr. Jerome N. Frank, with whom Attorney General Cummings, Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Morris, and Messrs. Enoch E. Ellison and Robert E. Sher were on the brief, for respondents Administrator et al.

Cases that cite this one

44 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kansas City Power & Light Company v. Douglas McKay Secretary of the Interior (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Alabama Power Company v. Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (5th Cir. 1968)
Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. City of Bushnell (7th Cir. 1940)
North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority (4th Cir. 2008)
Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1965)
United States v. State of Mississippi (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1964)
Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1939)
Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1938)
Alabama Power Co. v. Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 1965)
White Current Corp. v. Rural Utility Service (In re Vermont Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont 1999)
Consolidated Television Cable Service, Incorporated v. City of Frankfort, Kentucky (6th Cir. 1972)
South Suburban Safeway Lines, Inc. v. The City of Chicago, Chicago Transit Authority (7th Cir. 1969)
Rural Electrification Administration v. Northern States Power Company (8th Cir. 1967)
Northern States Power Co. v. Rural Electrification Administration (D. Minn. 1965)
Stemerman v. Ackerman (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1962)
Stemerman v. Ackerman (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1962)
Taft Hotel Corporation v. Housing And Home Finance Agency (2d Cir. 1958)
Taft Hotel Corp. v. Housing & Home Finance Agency (2d Cir. 1958)
United States v. Litchfield (District Court, D. Maine 1956)
Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Prudence-Bonds Corp. (New Corp.) (2d Cir. 1953)
Harper v. Jones (10th Cir. 1952)
Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. v. City of McAllen (5th Cir. 1945)
Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. Ickes (2d Cir. 1943)
Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard (2d Cir. 1943)
Queensboro Farms Products, Inc. v. Wickard (2d Cir. 1943)

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

Mr. Justice Sutherland

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the same question as that just decided in Nos. 84 and 85, ante, p. 464. 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 II of the National Industrial Recovery Act, set forth, so far as material, in Nos. 84-85, 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. Accordingly, the case was remanded to *490 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. 91 F. (2d) 665; see also preceding decision, 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 county was lawful and that even though the administrator were without authority to make the proposed loan and grant, no legal right of petitioners was thereby invaded. The opinion upon this branch of the case is in harmony with the views we have just expressed in Nos. 84 and 85; and it follows that the decree must be, and it is,

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.

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