New York Tel. Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645 (1934). · Go Syfert
Search
New York Tel. Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645 (1934). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
60 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mathias v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc. (scotus, 2002-05-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934 1980 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Mathias v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc.
SCOTUS · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 (1934) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Asarco, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
6th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645 , 54 S.Ct. 443 , 78 L.Ed. 1041 (1934).
cited Cited "see" Asarco, Incorporated v. Secretary of Labor, and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
6th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645 (1934).
discussed Cited "see" United States of America, Nisqually Indian Tribe and Puyallup Indian Tribe, Intervenors-Appellants v. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries
9th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645 , 54 S.Ct. 443 , 78 L.Ed. 1041 (1934) (per curiam); Webb v. “Beverly Hills Federal Savings and Loan Association, 364 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1966); Bodkin v. United States, 266 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1959) (per curiam) (interest of litigant in controversy solely for its effect as precedent insufficient to sustain an appeal); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 203.06, at 715-17 (2d ed. 1975).
cited Cited "see" Securities and Exchange Commission v. Crofters, Inc.
S.D. Ohio · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U.S. 645 , 54 S.Ct. 443 , 78 L.Ed. 1041 (1934).
discussed Cited "see" Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 , and cases cited.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY, Appellant, v. HELDOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, et al., 291 U.S. 645 , 54 S.Ct. 443 , 78 L.Ed. 1041 (1934) (appellant not entitled to an appeal from a decree for the purpose of reviewing portions of the decree that are not res judicata).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New York Telephone Co.
v.
Maltbie
No. 586.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1934.
291 U.S. 645
Messrs. Edward, L. Blackman and Charles T. Russell for appellant. Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly, Daniel F. Cohalan, Thomas F. Fennell, Melvin L. Krulewitch, Frank E. Carstarphen, and Harry Hertzoffi for appellees..
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam:

The District Court, specially constituted as required by statute (28 U.S.C. 380), permanently enjoined, as confiscatory, the enforcement of the rate orders which are the subject of this suit. The injunction is unqualified. Appellant, having obtained this relief, is not entitled to prosecute an appeal from the decree in its favor, for the purpose of reviewing the portions of the decree fixing the value of appellant’s property as of the years 1924,1926, and 1928, and the rate of return to be allowed. The matters set forth in these portions of the decree are not to be regarded as res judicata in relation to subsequent legislative action by the Public Service Commission in fixing rates for the future or in any judicial proeeeding relating to such rates. The motion.to dismiss the appeal is granted. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Comm’n, 289 U.S. 287, 304, 305; State Corporation Comm’n v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561; Lewis v. United States, 216 U.S. 611, 612, 613; Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 376, 377, 378; New Orleans v. Emsheimer, 181 U.S. 153, 154.