San Joaquin & Kings River Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U.S. 454 (1914)
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.
San Joaquin & Kings River Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U.S. 454 (1914)
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 233 U.S. 447, click here.
San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Company v. Stanislaus County No. 303 Argued March 18, 1914 Decided April 27, 1914 233 U.S. 454
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
As the franchise involved in this case provides that the rates for supplying water may be fixed by a public body, but so that the returns shall not be less than a specified percent on the value of all the property actually used and useful to the appropriation and furnishing of the water, the value of the water rights owned by the company must be taken into account in establishing such rates.
A party may wait until after a law is passed or a regulation is made which affects his interests and then stand upon his constitutional rights, and so held that a public utility corporation may attack a rate as confiscatory after it has been made, although it offered no evidence as to the value of its property and of the service rendered before the governing body establishing the rate. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line, 211 U.S. 210.
The declaration in the California Constitution of 1879 that water appropriated for sale is appropriated for a public use is not to be construed as meaning that the water belongs to the public at large, but as meaning that those within reach may obtain it at a reasonable price.
191 F. 875 reversed.
The facts, which involve the validity under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of orders establishing water rates of an irrigation company in California, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," San Joaquin & Kings River Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U.S. 454 (1914) in 233 U.S. 454 233 U.S. 455–233 U.S. 458. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DMGZYTIE4TLIMS2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." San Joaquin & Kings River Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U.S. 454 (1914), in 233 U.S. 454, pp. 233 U.S. 455–233 U.S. 458. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DMGZYTIE4TLIMS2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in San Joaquin & Kings River Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U.S. 454 (1914). cited in 1914, 233 U.S. 454, pp.233 U.S. 455–233 U.S. 458. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DMGZYTIE4TLIMS2.
|