Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Krebs v. Ashbrook (District Court, District of Columbia 1967)
- Joseph C. Daniel, Jr. v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee (6th Cir. 1975)
- O'HAIR v. Paine (District Court, W.D. Texas 1969)
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission Of California (9th Cir. 1983)
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (9th Cir. 1983)
- Potomac Passengers Ass'n v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States (10th Cir. 1973)
- Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1970)
- Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. United States (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1969)
- Canton Poultry, Inc. v. Conner (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1968)
- Allen v. State Board of Elections (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)
- Thomas A. Dewitt Stephen J. Dewitt v. Pete Wilson, Governor, and Anthony Miller, Secretary of State of the State of California (9th Cir. 1997)
- Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)
- Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)
- Canton Poultry, Inc. v. Doyle Conner (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)
- Double Eagle Lubricants, Inc. v. Texas (Supreme Court of the United States 1966)
- County Bd. of Elections of Monroe Cty. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1966)
- County Board of Election v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1966)
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
In the three-judge District Court from which this appeal comes to us, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sued to enjoin the enforcement of a duly promulgated order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on the sole ground that the order conflicted with a federal statute. The Commission, among other defenses, con *282 tended that the federal statute was unconstitutional, but the District Court decided the case in favor of the railroad and issued an appropriate injunction. 240 F. Supp. 233.
It follows from our recent decision in Swift & Co. v. Wickham, ante, p. 111, that the injunction sought by the railroad, being based on incompatibility between the state order and the federal statute, was not grounded in the “unconstitutionality” of a state measure so as to require a three-judge tribunal under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1964 ed.). Nor is § 2282, requiring such a tribunal in order to enjoin “any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution,” invoked by the Commission’s defense that the federal statute is unconstitutional; it is settled that this provision “does not provide for a case where the validity of an Act of Congress is merely drawn in question, albeit that question be decided, but only for a case where there is an application for an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the enforcement of an Act of Congress.” Garment Workers v. Donnelly Co., 304 U. S. 243, 250.
Because a three-judge court was not required to adjudicate this suit, this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1964 ed.) to entertain a direct appeal. It does not appear from the record that the Commission lodged a protective appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the time to do so has almost certainly expired. The appeal to this Court occurred before Swift & Co. v. Wick-ham, supra, was decided, and there is no reason why the Commission should be deprived of appellate review. In accordance with precedent, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. See Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 254.
It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.