green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1991 ·
…protects all, those suspected or known to be offenders as well as the innocent
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 · 2 courts ·
…there is no formula for the determination of reasonableness. each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931
1978
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard, United States of America v. Mary Sue Hubbard Church of Scientology of California, Church of Scientology of California v. United States of America
But see note 121, infra 66 See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. at 355 , 51 S.Ct. at 157 (approving summary procedure for determination of claim to seized papers); Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. at 225 , 49 S.Ct. at 119 (same); Bolt v. United States, 2 F.2d at 923-24 (reversing denial of motion for return of property illegally seized); United States v. Wilson, 540 F.2d at 1103 (same) (summary nature of proceeding not addressed) "Summary" proceedings by definition are those conducted "in a prompt and simple manner." Black's Law Dictionary 1084 (5th ed. 1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Madsen
there is no formula for the determination of reasonableness. each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Efrain Becerra-Garcia
there is no formula for the determination of reasonableness. each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Edward Soldal v. County of Cook
(2×)
protects all, those suspected or known to be offenders as well as the innocent
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Brian De Arrie McGee
Each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.” Id. (quoting Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S. Ct. 153, 158 (1931)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stone v. Shea
(2×)
Ed. 374, 382 , 51 S. Ct. 153, 158 (1931) (emphasis added); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 33 , 10 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Flores
The word “unreasonable” “ ‘is a widely used and well understood word and clearly so when juxtaposed’ ” with “risk of danger.” (Kash Enterprises, at p. 304; see People v. Morgan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 593, 606 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 , 170 P.3d 129 ] [“ ‘As the Supreme Court stated in Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States (1931) 282 U.S. 344, 357 [ 75 L.Ed. 374 , 51 S.Ct. 153 ], “There is no formula for the determination of reasonableness.” Yet standards of this kind are not impermissively vague, provided their meaning can be objectively ascertained by reference to common exper…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Crippen, Timothy J.
(2×)
See Banks, 540 U.S. at ___ , 124 S.Ct. at 525 (citing Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 158 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931), and other cases). 22 Consequently, whether a reasonable period of time is fifteen seconds, see Spriggs, 996 F.2d at 322-23 (cited in Banks, 540 U.S. at ___ n. 5, 124 S.Ct. at 526 n. 5), more than thirty seconds, see Griffin v. United States, 618 A.2d 114, 115, 125 (D.C.1992), or even one to two minutes, see United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 372, 374 (7th Cir.1991), or more or less, will depend not on whether the United States Attorne…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Russell R. George, AKA Rusty, and Pamela A. Johnson-Sherman, Francis R. Lajoice
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 158 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Whitsell
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States (1930), 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 *520 L.Ed. 374; United States v. Rabinowitz (1950), 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 .
cited
Cited "see"
Willis v. United States
See Go-Bart Importing Company v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355, 358 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 157, 158 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellant
(2×)
See Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 352-53 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 156-57 , 75 L.Ed. 375 (1931) (commissioners may be appointed by district courts as inferior officers because their actions are “preparatory and preliminary” to disposition of case by judge); accord Rice v. Ames, 180 U.S. 371 , 21 S.Ct. 406 , 45 L.Ed. 577 (1901).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Whiting
See Richardson v. Zuppann, 81 F.Supp. 809, 813 (M.D.Pa.1949), aff’d, 174 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1949), citing Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 158 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); see also United States v. DeLeo, supra. One of the circumstances surrounding this exercise of government power to be considered is the nature of the presence of American servicemembers within the foreign country.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Hubbard
(3×)
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 157 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 225 , 49 S.Ct. 118, 119 , 73 L.Ed. 275 (1929); United States v. LaFatch, 565 F.2d at 82-83.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Premises Known as 608 Taylor Ave., Apartment 302, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Appeal of Harold Margolis
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931). 32 Under their authority to discipline attorneys and Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, district courts may order the return or the suppression of illegally seized evidence held by the United States Attorney, even when there are no other criminal or civil proceedings pending.
discussed
Cited "see"
Malcolm Ralph Morrison v. United States
See United States v. Carney, 328 F.Supp. 948 (D.Del.1971), aff'd 455 F.2d 925 (3d Cir. 1972) 7 Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 , 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) 8 Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 158, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931) 9 See Rogers v. United States, 330 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1964) 10 The form used in this case by the Secret Service agents consists of two parts, first 'the warning of the constitutional rights,' which was signed by defendant, the second 'a waiver of rights' which defendant refused to sign 11 Schmerber v. California…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alan McSurely United States of America v. Margaret McSurely
See Finding of Fact No. 3, Defendants' Appendix, Vol. 2, pp. 971-72 11 McSurely v. Ratliff, 398 F.2d 817 (6th Cir. 1968) 12 Id. at 818 13 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223-224 , 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1447 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) 14 The affidavit is set out in full in Defendants' Appendix, Vol. 2, p. 945 15 United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) 16 393 U.S. 410, 416 , 89 S.Ct. 584, 589 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969) 17 Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, Baldwin's 1936 Revision 18 The statute was held unconstitutional in McSurely v. Ratliff, supra note 5 19 Not…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Undorf
See Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 75 L.Ed. 374 , 51 S.Ct. 153 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Soyka
There is no doubt that “[t]he quantum of information which constitutes probable cause * * * must be measured by the facts of the particular case.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 413 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); see Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S. Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Simon
Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 , 76 S.Ct. 292 , 100 L.Ed. 233 (1956); see Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); In re No. 32 East 67th Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, 96 F.2d 153 (2 Cir. 1938).
cited
Cited "see"
John Smith, Jr. v. Nicholas Deb. Katzenbach
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); United States v. Maresca, 266 F. 713, 717 (S.D.N.Y.1920).
examined
Cited "see"
Lee David Arwine v. William H. Bannan, Warden
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 [ 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ]; United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 [ 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 ]”; and, in a footnote, Mr. Justice Brennan mentioned: “Earlier expressions looking the other way, Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 [ 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 ]; Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 198-199 [ 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ], were put in proper perspective by their author in Go-Bart and Lefkowitz.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Stern
United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 , 52 S. Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 (1932) ; see Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lord v. Kelley
(2×)
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355 , lines 8-10, 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Burrachio
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 , 51 S. Ct. 153 , 158, 75 L.
examined
Cited "see"
John Carlo v. United States
(4×)
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ; United States v. Lefkowitz, supra. On the other hand, the fact that it was not DiCarlo's apartment is not an absolute obstacle to any search whatever.
cited
Cited "see"
Bolger v. United States
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ; *251 Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 , 80 S.Ct. 1431 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 . 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kennedy
See Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , at page 355, 51 S.Ct. 153 , 157, 75 L.Ed. 374 , where the Court said: “The complaint, which in substance is recited in the warrant, was verified merely on information and belief and does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense.” Citing Ex parte Burford (supra), and other cases.
cited
Cited "see"
Goodman v. Lane
See Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344 , 51 S. Ct. 153 , 75 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burgess v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Compare 12 C.F.R. § 308.5 , with Go-Bart v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 353 n.2, 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931) (listing powers of United States Commissioners); see also Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513-15 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (holding that ALJs are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages stemming from official acts because they are "functionally comparable” to judges). 41 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shi Yan Liu, A/K/A Simon Liu, Jie Hu and Shao Zhen Lin
Such searches — which have been variously described as “wide — ranging exploratory searches,” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 , 107 S.Ct. 1013 , 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987), and “indiscriminate rummagingfs],” United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 75 (2d Cir.1992)—are especially pernicious, and “have long been deemed to violate fundamental rights.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 195 , 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927); see also, e.g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931) (“Since before the creation of our gover…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Otonye v. United States
See, e.g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165, 168 (2d Cir.1960) (Friendly, J.) (“The rule embodies a practice which long antedated it ...
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Ninety-One Thousand Dollars in United States Currency
See also Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931) and progeny. 11 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Brighter
(2×)
See also, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. U.S., 282 U.S. 249 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 158 (1931).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Central South Carolina Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi v. United States District Court
See, e. g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 157 , 75 L.Ed. 374 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Central South Carolina Chapter v. United States District Court for District of South Carolina
See, e. g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 355 , 51 S.Ct. 153, 157 , 75 L.Ed. 374 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayo v. United States
See, e. g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1975); Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richardson v. State of Maryland
See also, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 , 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 (1932); Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 , 45 S.Ct. 414 , 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925), and Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 571 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 , 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969) (Steward, J., concurring in result), where police, who have a search warrant, find in “plain view” during the search other admissible items of an incriminating nature; Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), and Hester v. Unit…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Louis Sager Hunsucker, Jr. v. Robert L. Phinney, District Director of Internal Revenue
(3×)
See also, e.g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 450 F.2d 199 (CA3, 1971); Smith v. Katzenbach, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 113 , 351 F.2d 810, 815-816 (1965); Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165 (CA2, 1960); Centracchio v. Garrity, 198 F.2d 382 (CA1, 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 866 , 73 S.Ct. 108 , 97 L.Ed. 672 ; Eastus v. Bradshaw, 94 F.2d 788 (CA5, 1938); Foley v. United States, 64 F.2d 1 (CA5, 1933); Applybe v. United States, 32 F.2d 873 (CA9, 1929), cert. denied, 280 U.S. 594 , 50 S.Ct. 39 , 74 L.Ed. 641 ; Fif…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lawrence F. Becker
(2×)
See also Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ; Henderson v. United States, 12 F.2d 528 , CA.4; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1635 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carignan v. United States
See, e. g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 354-355 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); Centracchio v. Garrity, 198 F.2d 382 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 344 U.S. 866 , 73 S.Ct. 108 , 97 L.Ed. 672 (1952).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lloyd Oren Holsey
The Supreme Court has condemned “a general exploratory search for merely evidentiary materials tending to connect the accused with some crime.” Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 153 , 67 S.Ct. 1098, 1102 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 ; see also Go-Bart Importing Company v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 358 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 , and United States v. Lef-kowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 465 , 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. One 1963 Cadillac Hardtop
Compare Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 [ 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ], with Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 [ 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ], and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 [ 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 ]; compare Go-Bart, supra, and Lefkowitz, supra, with Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 [ 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 ], and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 [ 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 ] ; compare also Harris, supra, with Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 [ 68 S.Ct. 1229 , 92 L.Ed. 1663 ], and Trupiano with Rabinowitz, supra (overruling Trup…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John W. Harris
(2×)
See also Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ; Henderson v. United States, 12 F.2d 528 , C.A.4; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1635 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Tate
Compare Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 [ 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ], with Go-Bart [Importing] Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 [ 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ], and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 [ 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 ]; compare Go-Bart, supra, and Lefkowitz, supra, with Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145 [ 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 ], and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 [ 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 ]; compare also Harris, supra, with Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 [ 68 S.Ct. 1229 , 92 L.Ed. 1663 ], and Trupiano with Rabinowitz, supra (ove…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mario Di Bella v. United States
Compare Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 , 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 , with Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 , and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 , 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 , compare Go-Bart, supra, and Lefkowitz, supra, with Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 , and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 ; compare also Harris, supra, with Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 , 68 S.Ct. 1229 , 92 L.Ed. 1663 , and Trupiano with Rabinowitz, supra (overruling T…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lapides v. United States
See, e. g., Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ; Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 ; Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 , 38 S.Ct. 417 , 62 L.Ed. 950 ; United States v. Poller, 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 911, 913-914 , 74 A.L.R. 1382 ; In re Fried, 2 Cir., 161 F.2d 453, 458 , 1 A.L.R.2d 996 ; White v. United States, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 215, 217 ; cf. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 328-329 , 60 S.Ct. 540 , 84 L.Ed. 783 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. United States
See also Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 ; United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 , 52 S.Ct. 420 , 76 L.Ed. 877 , 82 A.L.R. 775 ; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 , 47 S.Ct. 248 , 71 L.Ed. 520 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN Et Al.
v.
MAXCY, RECEIVER, Et Al.
v.
MAXCY, RECEIVER, Et Al.
464.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 5, 1931.
Mr. Suel 0. Arnold, with whom Mr. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General of Wisconsin, was on the fcrief, for appellants., Mr. Robert M. Rieser, with whom Messrs. H. L. Butler, U. H. Thomas, B. H. Stebbins, and R. M. Stroud were on the brief, for appellees.
McReynolds.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice McReynolds
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Maxcy, Receiver of the Washburn Water Works Company, by an original bill filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, January 2, 1929, sought to prevent enforcement of an order by the Wisconsin.Railroad Commission dated December 4, 1928, which denied application of that Company for permission to make a general increase in water rates.
After answer the cause was heard, by stipulation, on the pleadings and affidavits. Without opinion or findings the court entered a decree April 5, 1929, enjoining enforcement of the challenged order, as prayed by the bill. Upon appeal here that decree was set aside and the cause remanded with directions to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a decree thereon. Railroad Commission v. Maxcy, 281 U. S. 82.
Obeying our mandate the court below made proper findings; and entered a final decree July 5, 1930. The present appeal followed.
The Railroad Commission appraised the property of the Water Works Company for rate making purposes at $75,000.00. It estimated the probable future annual operating income as $17,720.00, operating expenses $12,868.32, net annual return $4,852.82. And it said this[*251] would yield something less than 7% on the approved valuation of the property devoted to public use.
Having again heard the cause upon pleadings and affidavits the court held that the valuation placed upon the property by the Railroad Commission was too low and contrary to the evidence; also that the Commission’s estimate of operating expenses was too low and contrary to the evidence; and further that the Commission’s order. if enforced would cause confiscation. Accordingly, it entered a final decree restraining the defendants from taking any steps to enforce the order.
After examining the findings and conclusions and the record upon which, they are based, we can find no adequate reason for disapproving the result reached by the court below.- Its decree will be affirmed.
The facts are 'peculiar; the applicable principles of law have been stated in former opinions here. ... To enter upon a detailed discussion of them at this timeVould serve no useful purpose. .
Affirmed.