|
|
Ex Parte Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 280 U.S. 142 (1929)
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.
Ex Parte Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 280 U.S. 142 (1929)
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 280 U.S. 124, click here.
Ex Parte Northern Pacific Railway Company No. 21, Original Return to rule presented November 25, 1929 Decided December 2, 1929 280 U.S. 142
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Syllabus
In a suit in the district court to restrain state officers, by interlocutory and permanent injunctions, from enforcing an order affecting railway rates upon the ground that the order conflicts with the federal Constitution and laws, when the plaintiffs apply for an interlocutory injunction on that ground and the district judge grants a temporary restraining order to be effective until such application shall be determined, it is his duty under Jud.Code, § 266 immediately to call two other judges, one of whom shall be a circuit justice or a circuit judge, to assist him in hearing and determining such application, and neither he nor another district judge, in the presence of such application and when it is being pressed, has jurisdiction, sitting alone, to entertain a motion by the defense to dissolve the temporary restraining order or a motion by the defense to dismiss the bill, or jurisdiction to dismiss the bill on the merits. P. 144.
Petitions for a rule directing the Honorable George M. Bourquin and the Honorable Charles N. Pray, judges of the district court for the District of Montana, and the district court for that District, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to set aside a decree dismissing the petitioners’ bill of complaint, and further directing Judge Pray to call in two other judges to assist him to hear and determine petitioners’ application for an interlocutory injunction. The case was heard on the original and supplemental petitions and the return to a rule to show cause issued to the two judges. The rule is made absolute.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ex Parte Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 280 U.S. 142 (1929) in 280 U.S. 142 280 U.S. 143. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LP2RYBQ8HR8LBNM.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ex Parte Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 280 U.S. 142 (1929), in 280 U.S. 142, page 280 U.S. 143. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LP2RYBQ8HR8LBNM.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ex Parte Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 280 U.S. 142 (1929). cited in 1929, 280 U.S. 142, pp.280 U.S. 143. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LP2RYBQ8HR8LBNM.
|