Newton v. Kings Cnty. Lighting Co., 258 U.S. 180 (1922). · Go Syfert
Search
Newton v. Kings Cnty. Lighting Co., 258 U.S. 180 (1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 32 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lynch v. Uhlenhopp (iowa, 1956-09-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1922 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1922 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lynch v. Uhlenhopp
Iowa · 1956 · confidence medium
S. 21: 'Since an order, judgment, or decree of a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter cannot be collaterally attacked in the contempt proceedings, but must be modified or vacated if erroneous, by a direct proceeding, disobedience of an order made by a court within its jurisdiction and power is a contempt, although the order may be clearly erroneous.’ See also Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 188-190 , 42 S. Ct. 277 , 66 L.
cited Cited "see" Benson v. Hunter
Okla. Civ. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 180 , 42 S.Ct. 217 , 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted.
cited Cited "see" In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Green
Ohio · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Howatt v. Kansas, 258 U. S., 181, 189 , 66 L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sackett v. Paine
R.I. · 1925 · signal: see also · confidence low
I. 121; see also Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 180, 184 ; Cooley on Const. Law (2nd ed.) 153, 154.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Newton, Attorney General of the State of New York, Et Al.
v.
Kings County Lighting Company
295.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 13, 1922.
258 U.S. 180
1922 U.S. LEXIS 2257
Mr. Wilber W. Chambers, with whom Mr. Charles D. Newton, Attorney General of the State of New york, and Mr. Charles E. Buchner were on the briefs, for Newton, Attorney General., Mr. Samuel F. Moran, with whom Mr. John D. Monroe was on the brief, for appellee.
McReynolds.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 70%
Citer courts: D. Utah (1)
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from' a final decree entered October 19, 1920, which enjoined the enforcement of c. 125, Laws of New York of 1906, ahd also the Act of New York Legislature approved May 9, 1916, c. 604, Laws of 1916. 268 Fed. 143. The first of these statutes fixed the price which appellee might charge for gas distributed in New York City at $1.00 per thousand cubic- feet, and the second amended the earlier one by reducing the maximuih price to eighty cents.

[*181] The original bill filed in May, 1920, alleges that the actual cost to appellee of manufacturing and distributing gas during 1919 and the first .three months of 1920 had exceeded eighty cents per thousand cubic feet; that such cost would not be less than $1.00 for an indefinite period thereafter; and that the, statutory rate was confiscatory.

The matter was referred to a Master who took proof and made a report which supported appellee’s claim. With some unimportant modifications this was confirmed by the court. An appropriate decree followed which wé are ¿sked to reverse for sundry specified reasons com-, mented upon orally and in the brief.

We are satisfied that the court below reached a correct conclusion and that none of the points relied upon for reversal are adequate to justify such action. So far as substantial all were adequately disposed of by the opinion of the trial court, and we need not comment further upon them.

The judgment below is

Affirmed,