|
Offield v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Offield v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 203 U.S. 368, click here.
Offield v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company No. 59 Argued October 25, 1906 Decided December 3, 1906 203 U.S. 372
ERROR TO THE, SUPREME COURT OF
ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Syllabus
Where plaintiff in error contends that the purpose for which his property has been condemned is not a public use, that the condemnation is unnecessary in order to obtain the desired end, and that the proceedings and state statute on which they are based violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and impair contract rights, federal questions are involved and, if not frivolous, the writ of error will not be dismissed.
It is within the power of a state to provide for condemnation of minority shares of stock in railroad and other corporations where the majority of the shares are held by another railroad corporation if public interest demands, and the improvement of the railroad owning the majority of stock of another corporation may be a public use if the state courts so declare, and the condemnation under §§ 3694, 3695, Public Laws of Connecticut, of such minority shares of a corporation is not void under the impairment clause of the Constitution either because it impairs the obligation of a lease made by the corporation to the corporation obtaining the shares by condemnation or because it impairs the contract rights of the stockholder.
78 Conn. 1 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Offield v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906) in 203 U.S. 372 203 U.S. 375. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=46717783HQYTLJM.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Offield v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906), in 203 U.S. 372, page 203 U.S. 375. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=46717783HQYTLJM.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Offield v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906). cited in 1906, 203 U.S. 372, pp.203 U.S. 375. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=46717783HQYTLJM.
|