Pennsylvania Railroad v. Towers
Citations
- 245 U.S. 6
- 38 S. Ct. 2
- 62 L. Ed. 117
- 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1844
Syllabus
<p>Whether the statutes of Maryland intend to authorize the Public Service Commission to revise intrastate commutation rates when such rates have already been established by voluntary action of the railroad company, is a question of state law concerning which the conclusion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland binds this court upon a writ of error to review its judgment.</p> <p>State regulation, through a public service commission, requiring a carrier to maintain commutation service between points within the State and fixing rates therefor, which are less than the intrastate rate lawfully established for one-way intrastate travel in general, does not deprive the carrier of due process of law when the service so regulated was established by the carrier voluntarily and the rates fixed by the State are reasonable. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, is distinguished, and the views expressed in that case which are inconsistent with the decision in this one are disapproved.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “A railroad company, although a quasi public corpo- ration, and although it operates a public highway has, never- theless, rights which the legislature cannot take away without a violation of the federal constitution....”
- “A railroad company, although a quasi public corpo- ration, and although it operates a public highway has, never- theless, rights which the legislature cannot take away without a violation of the federal constitution....”
- “A railroad company, although a quasi public corpo- ration, and although it operates a public highway has, never- theless, rights which the legislature cannot take away without a violation of the federal constitution....”
- “A railroad company, although a quasi public corpo- ration, and although it operates a public highway has, never- theless, rights which the legislature cannot take away without a violation of the federal constitution....”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Day, Mc-Kenna, McReynolds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.